HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment - PA2014-083 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
October 23, 2014 Meeting
Agenda Item 2
SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment - (PA2014-083)
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
(949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
ABSTRACT
City Council directed staff to review Zoning Code Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming
Structures) as it relates to additions to nonconforming structures, specifically where the
total allowable additional floor area may be limited due to the size of a smaller existing
structure. Upon review and discussion, staff has identified two primary options for
consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Direct staff to return with a resolution amending the Zoning Code to include one of the
options detailed below.
BACKGROUND
In August 2013, the Planning Commission denied a variance request to retain an existing
nonconforming structure while adding nearly 100 percent of the existing square footage
whereby the Zoning Code limits such additions to 50 percent.
The project was subsequently appealed by the applicant on the basis that the allowed
addition is hindered by the size of the existing smaller structure on the property when
compared to other nonconforming properties that may already be developed with larger
structures and can add more square footage by right. City Council continued the project
indefinitely and directed staff to review the Zoning Code's nonconforming regulations and
how they apply to smaller nonconforming structures to ensure equitable development
opportunities.
On August 21, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the item in a study session and
discussed potential changes to the Zoning Code. Although it was agreed there may be
inequities amongst nonconforming developments, the Planning Commission expressed
concern that allowing too much flexibility may compromise the purpose of encouraging
conformance with the development standards. The Planning Commission directed staff to
return with a more detailed report including examples of the recommended options.
1
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, October 23, 2014
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The purpose of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) is to encourage
nonconforming structures to become more conforming over time through establishing
procedures and criteria for continuation, maintenance, and expansion. This is currently
achieved by limiting additions to nonconforming structures to 50 percent of the existing
gross floor area and further limiting additions to 10 percent when the required parking is
not provided on-site.
In cases where a structure is nonconforming only due to built circumstances (e.g. setback
encroachments, height, etc.) and the required parking is provided, the 50-percent limitation
will generally allow the property owner to develop the property near or to its maximum floor
area limitation. However, in cases where the structure is nonconforming and required
parking (garage) is not provided, the addition of required parking can account for a
substantial portion of the 50-percent allowance, especially when the existing structure is
small in relation to the lot size.
In reviewing the aforementioned criteria, staff analyzed multiple alternatives which could
provide additional flexibility and eliminate constraints placed on smaller nonconforming
structures. Those options are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1 - Options for Additions to Nonconforming Structures
Options Description
Allow a 50-percent addition of the existing gross floor area by right and up to a 75-
1 percent addition of the existing gross floor area subject to a discretionary review.
Allow a 50-perecent addition of the existing gross floor area or 75 percent of the
2 allowable floor area limitation, whichever is greater.
Allow a 50-percent addition of the existing gross floor area to a nonconforming
structure, but exclude the additional floor area associated with providing a conforming
3 garage and further stipulate the maximum square footage excluded for each garage
size (i.e., 200 sq. ft. — 1-car garage, 400 sq. ft. — 2-car garage, 600 sq. ft. — 3-car
garage, etc.).
Allow a 50-percent addition of the existing gross floor area to a nonconforming
structure, but exclude the additional floor area associated with providing a conforming
garage and further stipulate the maximum square footage excluded for each garage
4 size (i.e., 200 sq. ft. — 1-car garage, 400 sq. ft. — 2-car garage, 600 sq. ft. — 3-car
garage, etc.). Allow an addition over 50 percent of the existing gross floor area up to a
maximum of 75 percent, subject to a discretionary review.
Although Option Nos. 1 and 2 can provide additional square footage, neither option
addresses whether or not conforming parking is provided on the property. Furthermore,
Option No. 2 would become difficult to apply when a property does not have a maximum
2
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, October 23, 2014
Page 3
floor area limitation; for instance in the R-1-6,000 Zoning District where development is
governed by a lot coverage maximum or in the Bluff Development Overlay and canyons
where string line policies are implemented.
Contrary to Option Nos. 1 and 2, Option Nos. 3 and 4 both encourage and account for the
addition of conforming parking where none currently exists and help to eliminate the
constraints placed on smaller nonconforming structures when conforming parking is added
as part of the redevelopment. Option No. 4, however, provides additional discretion in
allowing an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing structure which can be applied on a
case-by-case basis with approval of a discretionary permit.
Staff believes Option No. 4 presents the most viable and effective option in reducing the
constraints on smaller nonconforming structures and would recommend either pursuing
this alternative or leaving the section as it is today. See Attachment No. PC 1 for more
detailed examples of how the current Zoning Code criteria apply versus the proposed
Option No. 4.
Alternatives
1) The Planning Commission may modify or create a new option for amendment; or
2) The Planning Commission may recommend upholding the current Zoning Code
language and provide reasoning for leaving it unchanged.
Environmental Review
This item is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3)).
Public Notice
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the
meeting at which the Planning Commission considers the item).
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Beja I M. eba Br n a Wisnes i, ICP, Deputy Director
As ' tant Planner
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Examples
PC 2 August 21, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes
V�
QP
�P
Attachment No. PC 1
Examples
5
V�
QP
�P
PA2014-083, Attachment No. PC 1
Options
Option 1 : Allow 50% addition of the existing gross floor area (current standard).
Option 4: Allow 50% addition of the existing gross floor area by right (current standard),
but exclude the addition of a conforming garage. Further stipulate the square footage
excluded for each garage size (i.e., 200 sq. ft. - 1-car garage, 400 sq. ft. - 2-car garage,
600 sq. ft. - 3-car garage, etc.). Allow over 50% addition of the existing gross floor area,
up to a maximum of 75%, subject to discretionary review.
Examples
The following examples all assume a conforming garage is being added as part of the project. If no
parking is being provided, the addition is limited to 10% and above options do not apply.
Scenario Details Option I Option 4 Option
Variance Duplex 1,785 sq.ft. duplex, 2,277 sq.ft.duplex 2,677 sq.ft.duplex, 3,124 sq.ft. duplex,
No Parking 0 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage
(Balboa Peninsula) 30'x 90'lot (2,677 sq.ft.total) (3,077 sq.ft.total) (3,524 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 5'f,3's,5'r (69%of allowable) (80%of allowable) (91%of allowable)
Smaller Duplex, 1,800 sq.ft. duplex, 2,300 sq.ft.duplex, 2,700 sq. ft. duplex, 2,948 sq.ft.duplex,
No Parking 0 sq.ft,garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq. ft. garage 400 sq.ft.garage
(Corona del Mar) 30'x 118' lot (2,700 sq.ft.total) (3,100 sq.ft.total) (3,348 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 20'f, 3's,5'r (81%of allowable) (93%of allowable) (100%of allowable)
Smaller Duplex, 1,800 sq.ft.duplex, 2,900 sq.ft.duplex, 2,700 sq.ft.duplex, 2,948 sq.ft.duplex,
2-Car Garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage, 400 sq.ft.garage, 400 sq.ft.garage
(Corona del Mar) 30'x 118'lot (3,300 sq.ft.total) (3,100 sq.ft.total) (3,348 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 20'f, 3's,5'r (99%of allowable) (93%of allowable) (100%of allowable)
Smaller SFR, 1,200 sq.ft.SFR, 1,700 sq.ft.SFR, 1,800 sq.ft.SFR, 2,100 sq.ft.SFR,
1-Car Garage 200 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage
(Corona del Mar) 30'x 118'lot (2,100 sq.ft.total) (2,200 sq.ft.total) (2,500 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 20'f, 3's,5'r (63%of allowable) (66%of allowable) (75%of allowable)
Larger Duplex, 2,500 sq.ft.duplex, 2,960 sq.ft. duplex, 2,960 sq.ft.duplex,
No Parking 0 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage N/A
(Balboa Peninsula) 30'x 85'lot (3,360 sq.ft.total) (3,360 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 10'f, 3's,5'r (100%of allowable) (100%of allowable)
Smaller SFR, 1,200 sq.ft.SFR, 1,400 sq.ft.SFR, 1,800 sq.ft.SFR, 2,100 sq.ft.SFR,
No Parking 0 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage
(Balboa Peninsula) 30'x 85' lot (1,800 sq.ft.total) (2,200 sq.ft.total) (2,500 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 10'f, 3's,5'r (54%of allowable) (65%of allowable) (74%of allowable)
Smaller SFR, 1,200 sq.ft. SFR, 1,400 sq.ft.SFR, 1,800 sq.ft.SFR, 2,100 sq.ft.SFR,
No Parking 0 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage
(Newport Heights) 50'x 117.5' lot (1,800 sq.ft.total) (2,200 sq.ft.total) (2,500 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 20'f,4's,5'r (23%of allowable) (28%of allowable) (32%of allowable)
Larger SFR, 2,000 sq.ft.SFR, 3,200 sq.ft.SFR, 3,000 sq.ft.SFR, 3,500 sq.ft.SFR,
2-Car Garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft. garage 400 sq.ft.garage 400 sq.ft.garage
(Newport Heights) 50'x 117.5' lot (3,600 sq.ft.total) (3,400 sq.ft.total) (3,900 sq.ft.total)
Setbacks 20'f,4's,5'r (46%of allowable) (44%of allowable) (50%of allowable)
V�
QP
�P
g
Attachment No. PC 2
August 21, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes
9
V�
QP
�P
20
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14
o e si a it en n e n S a e a c ( to d t a
r o 'o ec n g 'ty ou it o 'on f de an d n o. 1 0 es li in a
ig eg ati s on d an wi th r o d g e
Hi re K tti a re
S: r a k
S N N e
N '
VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 4 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CODE REVIEW(PA2014-083)
Site Location: City-wide
Chair Tucker noted this Is a Study Session item meaning that no action will be taken by the Planning
Commission at this time.
Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba provided a presentation including background, a prior variance request related to
the matter,denial by the Planning Commission and subsequent appeal to Council. He reported that it was heard
by Council but the item was continued Indefinitely and directed staff to review the Municipal Code relative to
nonconforming structures, specifically smaller structures. He addressed the purpose of the nonconforming
chapter, specific criteria referenced and details of options discussed by staff. He outlined next steps and offered
to respond to questions.
In response to Commissioner Myer's inquiry regarding staffs preferred option, Mr.Zdeba stated that staff would
prefer Option Nos. 2 or 3 as stated in the report noting that Option No. 3 gives additional leeway by way of a
discretionary review in the case where there is a nonconforming portion of the property that might encroach on
one side making the structure nonconforming and allows for a case-by-case review of a property.
In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr.Zdeba addressed examples of nonconforming structures noting
there are a variety of different development standards within the residential zoning district section of the code.
He added that nonconforming structures and the scope of the discussion primarily Involve setback
encroachments and over height structures.
Commissioner Hillgren reiterated the intent and purpose of the nonconforming section of the code and stated an
interest in finding a way to help property owners who wish to bring nonconforming properties closer to
conformance. Mr. Zdeba indicated the options identified would help to encourage the addition of conforming
parking and also commented on the possibility of not supporting requests for increased offenses in terms of
nonconformance.
Chair Tucker touched on the background of the item and noted there could be an inequity wherein a property
owner with a larger structure built earlier on can add more square footage and develop the property further than
a property owner with a smaller structure built earlier on with similar nonconforming conditions. But he further
expressed concern with implementing a discretionary procedure to allow an addition up to 75 percent stating that
it could prevent the purpose of encouraging conformance.
Commissioner Hillgren discussed adding garages to address situations where parking is the nonconforming
issue and whether or not the new addition of parking would increase the total allowable addition with the 50
percent limitation.
Mr. Zdeba noted that staff considered stipulating a specific maximum square footage that could be excluded
from a garage depending on the number of parking spaces added. In response to Commissioner Koetting's
inquiry, he clarified Option No. 4 noting that it eliminates the discrimination between a smaller structure and
larger structure,but that staff had concerns with this option because there are areas of the City that are regulated
by lot coverage and others regulated by string-line policies.
Page 6 of 10
11
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14
Chair Tucker opened public comments.
W.R. Dildine reported that there are only two of these properties that are in trouble. One property,near him, has
to abate Its commercial use and another one that was demolished that complies with the current code. He
added there is possibly one in the 800 block. He suggested that something could be done to ease the pain of
the property owners in allowing them to redevelop their properties.
John Loomis, architect for the project that triggered this discussion, thanked staff and the Commission for
reviewing this matter. He stated that the existing regulation penalizes smaller property owners and commented
on Option No. 2 noting that in following same, the property would still be about 1,000 square feet below the
average property in the block. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider either Option Nos. 3 or 4.
He added that in his case, the nonconformity was created by a Zoning District change. He added that there are
other people that could benefit from this change as well.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
Chair Tucker stated he would like to see a more complete staff report that details the options in order to be
prepared to vote next time.
Ms. Wisneski stated that staff will bring the matter back as a Public Hearing item with documents presenting
options for the Planning Commission to consider.
Chair Tucker agreed and commented on the possibility of staff generating other options in the process of writing
the staff report.
Commissioner Hillgren stated he believes in merit-based approvals and encouraged finding ways in which
properties can become more conforming.
Ms. Wisneski reported that the matter will return to the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October
and will be properly noticed.
Commissioner Koetting requested examples of cases that have and have not worked.
Chair Tucker declared that the item will be heard by the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October.
T 5 O V A E I E ( 6)
Si L at re w o a a He b n e n s V t
e ty o ty e op en i to Wi in o e e 'e no' g at a Ila h en
u e in a vi 'za' n o in a t o y rs n d s d ize vi ry an a th
al a 'Ba vis m itt a an g ere e I a Ila st P is 'nc de a
co o n el d p in is eINtS Nvi 'za' n r b u 'n th r e o d e a an o
m f c e e be a d rr to to r re rt.
ci I n r m el re nt ai of a Ib ag P in M ag e n d si th
n ff toe li th vi e, d do o e Ib a to I i le en do s eg s
ou ' e in e p a c si rn a in 'n ag h 'sti II . H de ib d c ati o he
Ib g a in a g a Di 'c, cr ti f a in a fit 'st a a he d rk tri
li a p in re it e c rca b in se r I of dy els a iXdd
m 'nt ' in th a in a 'n es ro a n e m a 've rw, u a e e 'on f
lu g If a to s, us ng He InK4 m di g et re s, si 'i f
e is li do an o in s en ff- a in i un .
o e it u r u 'o C p II i nt1 d e m th a un r
P ni si ha T e o t t si h a e a w a f p i a io
t 'Ib m e.
Page 7 of 10
1�
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional
Nongonlorming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
Nonconforming StrUctures
Code Amendment
raj
3 �•
Planning Commission
O� e
Public •
October23, 2014cg4FonN�r
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional
Nonconforming Structures Code c
Background
-_
Hormann Variance — add 99 . 5% of existing floor
area to nonconforming duplex
m August 202.3 — Planning Commission denies
i Appealed to City Council
January 2014 — City Council continues item and
directs staff to review N B M C 20 . 38 . 040
August 2014 — Planning Commission Study
Session
10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division z
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendm 4-083)
Overvinew y `
9 /pp
■ NBMC Section 20 . 38 . 040 ( Nonconforming
Structures)
Criteria for continuation, maintenance and
expansion of nonconforming structures
Encourage increased conformance for
nonconforming structures
Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the existing
structure within any ten (so) year period
10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division 3
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional Materials Presente eting
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendrn 4-083)
Overvinew y `
9�/pp
Options
#1 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(current standard) .
# 2 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
or 75% of allowable, whichever is greater.
#3 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area,
but exclude addition of a conforming garage .
#4 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(up to 75% w/ discretionary), but exclude addition of
a conforming garage .
10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division Z,
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional Materials Presente eting
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendrn 4-083)
Overvinew y `
9�/pp
Options
#1 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(current standard) .
# 2 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
or 75% of allowable, whichever is greater.
#3 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area,
but exclude addition of a conforming garage .
#4 — Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(up to 75% w/ discretionary), but exclude addition of
a conforming garage .
10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional
• • • • •• • • 1 :
Scenario
Option # i - Current
• / •
1, 785 sq . ft . duplex (= 892 . 5 sq . ft . addition)
No required parking provided
400 sq . ft. garage addition 6
492 . 5 sq . ft . livable addition O 9 Ax
117� - ,
jjj
CARPORT . FLO .
AREA
/. . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_ ..
10/23/203.4 Community Development Department- Planning Division
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional
Scen
•
ri
• Nonconforming •• • • W
1 :
ft
Option • % ,.3aragt.
1, 785 sq . ft . duplex (=892 . 5 sq . ft. " livable" addition)
No required parking provided
400 sq . ft. garage addition
892 . 5 sq . ft. livable addition OFFMAXM
ADDITION 2NDFLOOR
CARPORT . GARAGE STFLOOR
• ' AREA
10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional
• • • • •• • • 1 :
Scenario
Option
1 Discretionary
1, 785 sq . ft . duplex (=1, 339 sq . ft. " livable'- addition)
No required parking provided
400 sq . ft. garage addition
1, 339 sq . ft. livable addition 91%
OF MAX
KL � �D • ' FLOOR
CARPORT . GARAGE ST0
FLOOR
AREA
10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division
Planning Commission - October1
Item • 2bAdditional
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendm 4-083)
Recommendation
g4Fp
Conduct a public hearing
Direct staff to return with a resolution
amending the Zoning Code to include one of
the options discussed
10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division 9
Planning Commission - October 23, 2014
Item No. 2b - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
t
1• *• 1
f
1 T
r
1
For more information contact:
Benjamin M.Zdeba,Assistant Planner
949-644-3253
bzdebaQa newportbeachca.gov
www.newport�eachca.gov
Planning Commission - October 23, 2014
Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
Ramirez, Brittany
From: Zdeba, Benjamin
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:47 AM
To: Ramirez, Brittany
Subject: FW:417-419 E. Balboa
Hi Brittany,
Please see correspondence received below regarding tonight's Planning Commission meeting.
Thanks,
BENJAMIN ZDEBA
PH. (949) 644-3253
bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
—Original Message—
From: thirtieth street architects,inc. [mailto:tsainc@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:30 AM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin
Cc: Gary Mobley; Greg & Sharon Hormann
Subject: 417-419 E. Balboa
Good morning Ben:
We have reviewed the proposed amendment alternatives with our client and concur with the staff
recommendation of Option 4. We feel that this is the fairest alternative because it allows some staff discretion
and Flexibility in considering project specific circumstances such as existing building size, extent of
nonconformity and cause of nonconformity.
We thank you for your efforts.
John Loomis
Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
949/673-2643
t