Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 - Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment - PA2014-083 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 4, 2014 Meeting Agenda Item 5 SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083) Citywide Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner (949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An amendment to Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code (Title 20) that would revise the allowed additions to nonconforming structures' by excluding the addition of square footage for conforming parking and allowing greater additions than currently allowed by the Zoning Code through the approval of a modification permit. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 (Attachment No. PC 1). INTRODUCTION 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 '"Nonconforming structure" means a structure that was lawfully erected, but that does not conform to the property development regulations for the zoning district in which the structure is located by reason of adoption or amendment of the Zoning Code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City. 1 V� QP �P Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment Planning Commission, December 4, 2014 Page 2 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 there was agreement that 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. On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing wherein it reviewed the identified options in more detail and provided direction to staff to evaluate excluding the construction of a conforming garage from the allowable addition to a nonconforming structure. The Planning Commission also suggested a discretionary process with specific findings addressing when development of a nonconforming structure is hindered by particulars such as existing size or the built circumstances which may not be applicable elsewhere. DISCUSSION Purpose and Intent 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. All additions must also comply with the applicable Zoning Code development standards. 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. Proposed Amendment In order to help ensure equitable development opportunities, the proposed amendment would: (1) exclude the additional square footage incurred when adding conforming parking and allow the additional square footage to be included as existing gross floor area for the purpose of calculating the allowable 50-percent addition; and (2) allow an 3 Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment Planning Commission, December 4, 2014 Page 3 addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area subject to the approval of a modification permit by the Planning Commission when additional findings can be made relative to the nonconforming status, neighborhood compatibility, and architectural design of the structure. Several scenarios of the Zoning Code regulation are provided in Attachment No. PC 4. The current findings for a modification permit and the proposed additional findings to allow additions larger than 50 percent of the existing gross floor area are provided below. Current required findings for a modification permit: 1. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood; 2. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s) of the property and/or structure, and/or characteristics of the use; 3. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; 4. There are no alternatives to the Modification Permit, that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public; and 5. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. Proposed additional findings: a. The existing development is a legal nonconforming structure. b. The architectural design and materials of the existing nonconforming structure and proposed addition(s) are consistent with Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). C. The existing nonconforming structure and the proposed addition(s) will be compatible with the existing and allowed pattern of development for the neighborhood. d. The level of nonconformity will not pose a health and safety threat for the property owner, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is not inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment Planning Commission, December 4, 2014 Page 4 Another potential component of the proposed amendment discussed during the October Planning Commission hearing was to limit the overall development of a nonconforming structure to 75 percent of the maximum allowable floor area for the property. Staff evaluated this criterion in depth and determined this "ceiling" would not be equally applicable Citywide. For instance, several zoning districts and most residential planned communities are governed by lot coverage rather than a square footage maximum or have string line policies in place to limit the area of development. Additionally, those nonconforming structures which are already at 75 percent of the maximum allowable floor area and currently allowed additions pursuant to the existing Zoning Code would not be eligible for any additional square footage. Therefore, staff does not recommend establishing this criterion. Summary Although staff believes Zoning Code Section 20.38.040 generally accomplishes the goals of property owners with nonconforming developments, it is acknowledged there may be inequities related to smaller nonconforming structures. "Smaller" is subjective and varies by neighborhood and zoning district within the City; therefore, there is no singular definition. As such, the inclusion of the modification permit process to increase the allowable addition may be utilized as a method that will limit potential hindrances against smaller structures based on the particulars of the development. Furthermore, the exclusion of the addition of conforming parking against the 50-percent addition allows for a larger addition, especially where the existing structure may be smaller and does not provide the required parking area. Together, these components should help to allow equitable development opportunities for properties containing nonconforming structures Citywide. Alternatives 1) The Planning Commission may modify the proposed amendment; or 2) The Planning Commission may determine a code amendment is not necessary. Environmental Review This item is covered by the general rule that California Environmental Quality Act (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)). Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment Planning Commission, December 4, 2014 Page 5 Public Notice This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2014, to the meeting of December 4, 2014. The item also appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Be6jaOnih M. fr eba *ra ishes i, ICP, Deputy Director Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval PC 2 August 21, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PC 3 October 23, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PC 4 Examples 04/0714 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval V� QP �P g RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2014-004 AMENDING SECTION 20.38.040 (NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES) REVISING THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWED ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES (PA2014- 083) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. 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. 2. An appeal was filed 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. 3. In February 2014, the City Council heard the appeal and continued the matter indefinitely, but directed staff to review Zoning Code Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) as it relates to smaller structures. 4. On August 21, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the item in study session and discussed potential changes. 5. On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the potential changes in more detail with further examples. Direction was provided to staff to provide further review of an option that would help to prevent hindrance of development when a smaller nonconforming structure exists, but would not negate the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). 6. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 1506(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. The current Zoning Code provisions for additions to nonconforming structures hinder the equitable development of properties containing smaller nonconforming structures when compared to properties containing larger nonconforming structures. 2. The purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) is maintained with the proposed changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 as set forth in Exhibit "A." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4T" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Larry Tucker, Chairman BY: Jay Myers, Secretary 10 Exhibit "A" Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 (proposed amendment is underlined) 20.38.040 — Nonconforming Structures Nonconforming structures may be maintained, altered, or added on to, only in compliance with the provisions of this Section. A. Maintenance and repairs. Routine maintenance and repairs may be made to nonconforming principal and accessory structures. B. Nonstructural alterations. Changes to interior partitions or other nonstructural improvements may be made to nonconforming principal structures, but shall not be made to accessory structures. C. Structural alterations. Structural elements, with the exception of foundations of nonconforming principal structures (see Subsection D, below), may be modified, repaired, or replaced. Structural alteration of nonconforming accessory structures is not allowed. i s D. Foundation alterations. Maintenance and repairs may be made to foundations of nonconforming principal structures. A foundation of a nonconforming principal structure may be modified, retrofitted, or replaced when necessary and in conjunction with additions allowed in compliance with Subsections 20.38.040 G and 20.38.060 A, below. For any alterations beyond routine repair or maintenance, the nonconforming structure shall be required to be brought into compliance with all applicable standards and regulations of this Zoning Code, except as provided in Subsection F, below. Alterations to nonconforming accessory structures shall not be allowed. E. Seismic retrofits. Alterations to nonconforming structures due to seismic retrofitting requirements are allowed in compliance with Chapter 15.07 (Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings) of the Municipal Code. F. Reasonable accommodation. Improvements to a nonconforming structure that are necessary to comply with an approved reasonable accommodation in compliance with Section 20.52.070 (Reasonable Accommodations) shall be allowed. G. Additions. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and the existing nonconforming elements of the structure shall not be required to be brought into compliance with the development standards of this Zoning Code subject to the following limitations and the limitations provided in Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking). 1. Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure within any ten (10) year period or up to 75 percent with a modification permit approved by the Planning Commission in compliance with 11 Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and when the following additional findings can be made: a. The existing development is a legal nonconforming structure. b. The architectural design and materials of the existing nonconforming structure and proposed addition(s) are consistent with Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). C. The existing nonconforming structure and the proposed addition(s) will be compatible with the existing and allowed pattern of development for the neighborhood. d. The level of nonconformity will not pose a health and safety threat for the Property owner, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is not inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). 2. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing structure, shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the zoning district; 3. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards and use regulations of this Zoning Code; and 4. Additional parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking), below. 5. The square footage of the required parking areas identified below shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection 20.38.040 G.1 above, but shall be included as gross floor area. Required Parking Maximum Excluded Areas One-car garage 200 s uare feet maximum Two-car garage 400 square feet, maximum Three-car garage 600 square feet, maximum H. Exceptions. 1 . Corona del Mar and Balboa Village. Existing nonresidential structures within Corona del Mar and Balboa Village that are nonconforming because they exceed the allowed floor area shall be exempt from the limits of this Section and may be demolished and 12 reconstructed to their pre-existing height and floor area, provided that not less than the pre-existing number of parking spaces is provided. 2. Landmark structures. Landmark structures shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter in compliance with Section 20.38.070 (Landmark Structures), below. 20.52.050 — Modification Permits A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide relief from specified development standards of this Zoning Code when so doing is consistent with the purposes of this Code and the General Plan, and does not negatively impact the community at large or in the neighborhood of the specified development. B. Review authority and allowable modifications. The Zoning Administrator shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for Modification Permits applicable only to the following, subject to the findings identified in Subsection E. (Required Findings), below: 1. Height modifications from exceptions identified in Part 3 (Site Planning and Development Standards). The following modifications are limited to not more than a 10 percent deviation from the standard being modified. a. Chimneys, rooftop architectural features, and vents in excess of the exception to the allowed height limits identified in Part 3 (Site Planning and Development Standards); b. Flag poles in excess of the exception to the allowed height limits; and C. Heights of fences, hedges, or walls (except retaining walls). 2. Setback modifications. The following modifications are limited to not more than a 10 percent deviation from the standard being modified. a. Encroachments in front, side, or rear setback areas while still maintaining the minimum clearances required by Section 20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions). Exceptions include the following: (1) Modifications shall not be allowed for encroachments into alley setbacks; and (2) Modifications shall not be allowed for encroachments into bluff and canyon setback areas. b. Structural appurtenances or projections that encroach into front, side, or rear setback areas. 13 3. Other modifications. The following modifications are not limited in the amount of deviation from the standard being modified. a. Distances between structures located on the same lot; b. Landscaping standards in compliance with Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping Standards); C. Maximum allowed roof area for roof mounted equipment that exceeds the allowed height limits identified in Part 3 (Site Planning and Development Standards); d. Size or location of parking spaces, access to parking spaces, and landscaping within parking areas; e. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for uses that have nonconforming parking; f. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for nonconforming structures as identified in Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures); g,f-. Increase in allowed height, number, and area of signs; and h.g Increase in the allowed height of retaining walls. 1-� Attachment No. PC 2 August 21 , 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 V� QP �P 2� NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 to e y is ' n Hi re a s on d y es uti r o a in Ci C n ' a ti o o a 0 - to sh' g r e n g ti I o n el ar n it a ro s la u e di a ' s is s o , H' gr tti d e E L ern u r I S• o S T m 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 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. 1 M O. B B AyrL G K G A G T 1 1 it oCA io ea es f ib V a e e 7 St et d d s e D u m i e o e c W' n i i o ce th ite n n a oa ill e s e nd go' g re 'ali do eff i h as 2) ea a a re e e iti ns' o el d e b V' g A so C e T e ra b Y g er la cl es co po nt la d p in as ell s t n f b u' n e re . e o d e an n of m of e m e b a d err to r re rt. n ip I n p s e s ill e a g a e n la a in e g ' g o to v i a ill e, do io f e b V g er la , i e n io gi C ne in edaff ep a c si ri I in in e a Is II H de i d a' th al a a9d P i M a m tri Ild b eti is ct d s a g istt, e' i 'o of a g q ' e n or o e al us' es s, s a b N o y a a tair1he xi g a ' g so e a u ' gtne m eOec' el di u d e ea' n lu r g e f e o s us n ' g -li p in a dif ' g et ra s, a ssi i f m i a' ati a o ri re e o t p i di u I re o t r ck s e n r. a b id tiff t it s at re d t I ni C si a' er of t i h a e a w art p cY ec' o at II de Page 7 of 10 1� Attachment No. PC 3 October 23, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 V� QP �P �o NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/23/14 'r Tucker noted that he submitted changes to the minutes of October 2, 2014, as did Mr. Jim Mosher. Chair Tucker o public comments. Seeing no one wishing to provide comment, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren econded by Commissioner Brown and carried (5 — 0) to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 4 as amended. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Koetting and Kramer VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM N0.2 Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment(PA2014-083) Site Location: Citywide Recommended Action: Direct staff to return with a resolution amending the Zoning Code to include one (1) of the options detailed in the staff report. Deputy Director of Community Development Brenda Wisneski reported that the Planning Commission conducted a study session in August, where an overview of the issue was presented along with potential options. She addressed the Planning Commission's direction at that time, the actions that can be taken at this time and deferred to staff for a report. Assistant Planner Benjamin Zdeba provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing background, prior cases considered, an overview of the intent and purpose of the nonconforming structures Zoning Code section to encourage the conformance of nonconforming structures over time, City Council concerns, details of available and recommended options, and various scenarios applying the recommended options. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry regarding the allowable percentage increase for a conforming property, Assistant Planner Zdeba reported that if a property is completely conforming, owners can add square footage to the maximum amount stipulated by floor area limitations. He added that different zoning districts have different regulations. Total maximum allowable floor area includes the garage square footage. Mr. Zdeba clarified that the issue at hand was more or less dealing with nonconforming setbacks ratherthan nonconforming parking. Commissioner Hillgren noted that the City is trying to create an incentive for people to be more in conformance with regard to parking and asked about incentives for people to reduce their setbacks or heights. Assistant Planner Zdeba stated that in this case, the addition of a conforming garage is seen as an added benefit regarding the nonconforming issue, and exclusion of the garage helps to eliminate the discrimination against smaller structures on properties that do not currently provide required parking. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of achieving 100 percent of the maximum floor area. Commissioner Lawler commented on Option No. 4 and asked about the discretionary review. Assistant Planner Zdeba reported that the matter would go to the Zoning Administrator. A mechanism would be provided to review allowance for additional square footage on a case-by-case basis. He added that Option No. 3 allows for the same provision, but eliminates the discretionary review component. Secretary Myers suggested that if the goal is to create more parking, it could be stated in Option No. 4 that attempting to increase the amount of available parking on-site is a factor in the determination of allowing additional square footage between 50 percent and 75 percent. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the purpose of the zoning amendment is not to incentivize additional parking, but to address small structures and the fact that they may be penalized for being small structures dealing with nonconformities. She added that parking is a by-product of the zoning amendment. Page 2 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/23/14 In response to Secretary Myers' question, it was noted that if parking is nonconforming, another code section provides a 10 percent addition limitation. In order to get more than a 10 percent addition, a property owner would have to provide the Code-required parking. Chair Tucker commented on the purpose of the nonconforming structure regulations was to encourage conformity. He questioned whether or not the goal of the Zoning Code should be to allow an equitable expansion of nonconforming structures so that small structures are treated like big structures if the overall goal is to achieve conformity. He added that a discretionary process would need to be accompanied by definitive findings to help ensure that equitable expansion of nonconformity would make sense. He expressed concerns regarding the findings and coming up with an appropriate set of findings that would be a function of the size, condition and architecture of the structure. He opined that the level of review for nonconforming structures should be the Planning Commission. He added that there should be a ceiling on the percentage of allowable floor area that could be permitted with a discretionary review. Chair Tucker invited public comments on this item. John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, reported that the reason his clients appealed the case to the City Council was because the ordinance is unfair and grants more to the "haves" than to the "have nots". He stated that all of the options have the incentives for getting from the 10 percent to the 50 percent by improving parking to a fully- conforming state. He added that his clients feel that Option No. 4 is the fairest of all the options presented and that the strict percentage of a given area of a building favors those with more area and disfavors those with less. He also added that there are factors involved that are not considered as a straight percentage of the existing area and reiterated his clients' preference for Option No. 4. In response to Chair Tucker's question, Mr. Loomis reported that it is possible that providing a cap on the allowable floor area could work with a discretionary action. He added that if Option No. 4 passes, his clients would have a reduction of approximately 300 square feet, resulting in nearly 1.75 times the buildable area. He added that the options presented are creative and are going in the right direction. He noted the importance of having a discretionary action involved to be able to deal with particulars of a case. Chair Tucker commented on being fair versus being in conformity. Amber Hormann stated her preference for Option No. 4 as it allows for the most livable space. Gary Mobley, Attorney representing the Hormann's, spoke in support of Option No. 4, noting that it allows flexibility of Planning and the Commission to address the unique situations of each property. He added that there will always be flexibility regardless of whether Option No. 4 is selected or not in terms of a variance application. He added that encouraging conformity needs to be balanced against the property rights of owners and the equity of each situation as it is applied to each property. Chair Tucker closed public comments. Chair Tucker noted that the important thing is to figure out what will make sense and make a recommendation that must be complied with. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the 50 percent limitation and added that with the current code there is an intent to penalize for remaining nonconforming. He stated that using the existing building size may not be the right starting point. Rather, the limitation should be based on what can be built on the property not the size of the home today. He suggested that adding the square footage of a new garage to the denominator might encourage people, where there is not a garage, to build one. The result would be a square footage bonus for having built a more conforming project. Discussion followed regarding setting a 75 percent of allowable floor area limitation as the maximum. Secretary Myers commented on allowing property owners to maximize the value of their property, including the garage, and setting a limit of 2.0, with the goal of conformity. He agreed that these matters should go before the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/23/14 Commissioner Lawler commented on Commissioners Hillgren and Myers' suggestion and indicated he would like to see examples. Additionally, he wondered if it would be prudent to try to quantify what the discretion means relative to Option No. 4 and what findings would be necessary in order to achieve that discretion. Discussion followed regarding the importance of understanding what the findings would have to be and of input from staff. Commissioner Brown suggested findings regarding architecture, building structure and materials and how the property became non-conforming. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez reported that staff does not see many nonconforming cases where the 50 percent standard currently in effect is not sufficient to achieve what the property owner/developer is trying to achieve. He added that the Hormann case is unusual, noting that many of the older homes that are nonconforming are usually torn down and rebuilt. He agreed with the need for findings if the Planning Commission approves Option No. 4 and suggested an additional finding regarding the degree of the nonconformity. Chair Tucker added that the size of the structure should also be considered in the findings. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski clarified that the Planning Commission is considering Option No. 4 and addressed inclusion of the garage in calculating the 50 percent. She reported that the modification permit could be utilized and be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. She added that modification permit findings are broad and can be augmented in accordance with the comments made above. Chair Tucker agreed and reiterated that he would like to see a 75 percent limitation and that the goal is to encourage conformity. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of eliminating the discretion and using 75 percent as the number and the possibility of including a square footage bonus using the addition of a conforming garage. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (5—0)to continue the matter until the Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2014. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Koetting and Kramer V STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM N MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -None ITEM NO.4 CO ITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on eneral Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director neski reported that the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee meeting for this month wa celled but will meet on November 26, 2014, to review the draft Implementation Plan. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that last week, City cil approved the a4rame sign ordinance for Corona del Mar and added a temporary(one year) program to be applied a boa Village. She reported that the Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration has been appealed to Ci uncil and is scheduled for November 25, 2014. Page 4 of 5 23 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 4 Examples 25 V� QP �P PA2014-083, Attachment No. PC 3 Examples Scenario Current 20.38.040 Amended 20.38.040 Amended 20.38.040 (Discretionary) SFR 700 sq. ft. addition 1,300 sq. ft. addition Up to 1.750 sq.ft. addition 1,400 sq. ft. livable (300 sq. ft. livable) (900 sq.ft. livable) (1,350 sq. ft. livable) No garage (400 sq. ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) 30'x 85' lot 2,100 sq. ft. SFR 2,700 sq.ft. SFR 3,150 sq. ft. SFR f 5', s 3', r 5' 58% of max allowable 75%of max allowable 88% of max allowable 2.0 x buildable Duplex 900 sq. ft. addition 1,500 sq. ft. addition 1,800 sq.ft. addition 1,800 sq. ft. livable (500 sq. ft. livable) (1,100 sq. ft. livable) (1,400 sq. ft. livable) No garage (400 sq. ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) 30'x 85' lot 2,700 sq. ft. Duplex 3,300 sq.ft. Duplex 3,600 sq. ft. duplex f 5', s 3', r 5' 75% of max allowable 92%of max allowable 100% of max allowable 2.0 x buildable SFR 800 sq. ft. addition 1,100 sq. ft. addition 1,550 sq.ft. addition 1,400 sq. ft. livable (600 sq. ft. livable) (900 sq.ft. livable) (1,350 sq. ft. livable) 200 sq. ft. garage (200 sq. ft. garage) (200 sq.ft. garage) (200 sq.ft. garage) 30'x 85' lot 2,200 sq. ft. SFR 2,700 sq.ft. SFR 3,150 sq. ft. SFR f 5', s 3', r 5' 61% of max allowable 75%of max allowable 88% of max allowable 2.0 x buildable Duplex 1.100 sq.ft. addition 1,100 sq. ft. addition N/A-development can be maxed out by right 1,800 sq. ft. livable (1,100 sq. ft. livable) (1,100 sq. ft. livable) given its existing structure size. 400 sq. ft. garage (two-car carport) (two-car carport) 30'x 85' lot 3,300 sq. ft. Duplex 3,300 sq.ft. Duplex f 5', s 3', r 5' 100% of max allowable 100% of max allowable 2.0 x buildable SFR 550 sq. ft. addition 1,150 sq. ft. addition 1,525 sq.ft. addition 1,100 sq. ft. livable (150 sq. ft. livable) (750 sq.ft. livable) (1,125 sq. ft. livable) No garage (400 sq. ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) 30'x 118' lot 1,650 sq. ft. SFR 2,250 sq.ft. SFR 2,625 sq. ft. SFR f 20', s 3', r 5' 49% of max allowable 67%of max allowable 78% of max allowable 1.5 x buildable Duplex 650 sq. ft. addition 1,250 sq. ft. addition 1,675 sq.ft. addition 1,300 sq. ft. livable (250 sq. ft. livable) (850 sq.ft. livable) (1,275 sq. ft. livable) No garage (400 sq. ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) (400 sq.ft. garage) 30'x 118' lot 1,950 sq. ft. Duplex 2,550 sq.ft. Duplex 2,975 sq. ft. Duplex f 20', s 3', r 5' 58% of max allowable 76%of max allowable 89% of max allowable 1.5 x buildable This amount includes the increase from including the addition of conforming garage towards the existing gross floor area. Planning Commission - December04, 2014 Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented At Meeting • • • • •• Amendment " 1 1: Nonconforming 3 ft. 3 ft• Code Amendment Planning Commission O� e Public • December • c r gtiFonN Planning Commission - December04, 2014 Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented 9 Nonconforming Structures Code Amendm -083) Overvinew ■ 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 12/04/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - December04, 2014 Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented 9 Nonconforming Structures Code Amendm -083) LastTime October 23, 2014 PC Hearing ■ Evaluate excluding conforming garage ■ Include new garage square footage towards existing for additions Consider a 75% ceiling for development Craft additional findings for discretionary process 12/04/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division 3 Planning Commission - December04, 2014 Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented ting • , Code Nonconforming •• • 1: Fm Existing structure a No required parking provided ■ 400 sq. ft. (max) garage addition ■ Livable addition (50% of existing + new garage) • Discretionary livable addition (up to 75% of existing + new garage) IFADDITION 2 ND FLOOR CARPORT . FLOOR • ' AREA 12/04/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division 4 Planning Commission - December04, 2014 Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented ting Zoning Code Nonconforming Structures Code Amend 0 -083) Current Standard 50% of existing structure added ■ No required parking provided ■ Garage addition ■ Livable addition (remainder of 5o% after garage add ) CARPORT . . AREA dL /. . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ .. iz/oy/zoic, Community Development Department- Planning Division Planning Commission - December04, 2014 Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented 9 Nonconforming Structures Code Amendm -083) Recommendation Conduct a public hearing; and L Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No . CA2014-004; or Deny the Code Amendment and retain current standard . 10/23/2014 Community Development Department- Planning Division 6 Planning Commission - December 04, 2014 Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083) VIA • t 1• *• 1 f 1 T r I For more information contact: Benjamin M.Zdeba,Assistant Planner 949-644-3253 bzdebaQa newportbeachca.gov www.newport�eachca.gov