Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2045 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP and Alternative Setback Determination pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) - 401 Heliotrope Ave and 2820 BaysideDr RESOLUTION NO. 2045 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING NEWPORT PARCEL MAP NO. NP2016-001 AND STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2016-020 TO SUBDIVIDE A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOT AND ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE SETBACKS FOR 401 HELIOTROPE AVENUE AND 2820 BAYSIDE DRIVE (PA2016-006) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Edward Sweeney and Michael Leggett, Inc., with respect to property located at 401 Heliotrope Avenue and 2820 Bayside Drive and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2013-176. 2. The applicant proposes a tentative parcel map to subdivide a single, 2-unit condominium lot creating two separate, "fee simple" lots. The subdivision includes the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot size standard and the applicant request approval pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 19.24.130 (Deviation from Design Standards). 3. The application also includes a request to establish alternative setbacks for the lots pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) to avoid the existing buildings from becoming noncompliant with setbacks and floor area limits. 4. The subject property is designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) by Land Use Element of the General Plan. The site is in the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District. 5. The subject property is entirely located within the coastal zone and designated RT (Two- Unit Residential) by the Newport Beach Certified Local Coastal Program. 6. A public hearing was held on January 19, 2017, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15315 under Class 1 (Minor Land Divisions) 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. The proposed subdivision and proposed alternative setbacks as conditioned will only change the form of ownership of the existing units Resolution No. 2045 Page 2 of 13 and will not result in new construction or increased density compared to the General Plan. 2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.24.130(A) (Deviation from Design Standards), the Planning Commission finds: Finding: A. The modified designs are specifically permitted pursuant to the provisions of planned community, planned residential development, specific plan or other regulations set forth in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The requested modified design is a reduced lot size. Newly created R-2 lots are required to be a minimum of 5,000 square feet for interior lots and 6,000 square feet for a corner lots. The existing lot and proposed lots are not considered corner lots because of the 90-foot wide parkway in Bayside Drive (Bayside Park). 2. Zoning Code, Section 20.18.030, Table 2-3, Footnote (2) allows smaller lots to be created provided they are not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face. 3. The original lots along the east side of Heliotrope Avenue were 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep and 3,540 square feet in area established by the 1904 subdivision map of Corona del Mar. The proposed lots are 3,639 square feet and 3,571 square feet and comply would comply with Zoning Code, Section 20.18.030, Table 2-3, Footnote (2). In accordance with NBMC Section 19.24.130(C) (Deviation from Design Standards), the Planning Commission finds: Finding: B. The requested deviation(s) will create a land plan or development design equal or superior to that under the baseline design standards in this chapter, Resolution No. 2045 Page 3 of 13 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The baseline design standard pursuant to the Zoning Code is 5,000 square feet and 50 feet wide. Corona del Mar was subdivided before the current standards and the most common lot is rectangular, 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep, and 3,540 square feet in area. Variations do exist due to street geometry and topography. 2. Numerous lots in Corona del Mar have been divided and recombined in various ways over the years creating lots of varying widths and sizes. More common dimensions are 45' x 118' and 60' x 118'. The predominant lot design remains nonconforming to the baseline design standard. 3. Sixteen lots within six blocks along Bayside Drive are the result of combining two or three lots creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The resulting development created takes better advantage of the existing topography allowing homes to step down the slope perpendicular to the topography. Finding: C. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local vehicular circulation network; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subdivision would not change the density or decrease the carrying capacity of local streets during the lifespan of the existing units. In the future, the two lots could be redeveloped or converted to two duplexes thereby increasing the density by two units over the current condition. 2. Traffic attributable to two additional units would have a negligible effect on the carrying capacity of the local circulation network. Finding: D. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact pedestrian circulation; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subdivision would not change the density during the lifespan of the existing units. The potential future increase in density of two units should not affect pedestrian traffic along Heliotrope Avenue. If the future units were to take access from Bayside Drive, it could affect pedestrian circulation; however, future access could be limited to Heliotrope Avenue or the driveway could be separated from pedestrians by modifications to the driveway if that future project were determined to be detrimental. 2. The City controls the time place and manner of the use of the public right-of-way through the development review and encroachment agreement process. Negative Resolution No. 2045 Page 4 of 13 affects to the pedestrian circulation under these limited and future circumstances can be avoided if it were determined to be a significant and detrimental impact. Finding: E. The resulting subdivision will be compatible with the pattern of surrounding subdivisions, Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed subdivision is based upon the existing development of the site that has not proven to be detrimental. 2. Sixteen lots within six blocks along Bayside Drive are the result of combining two or three lots creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The resulting development pattern created takes better advantage of the existing topography allowing homes to step down the slope perpendicular to the topography. Finding: F. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and will conform to the Subdivision Map Act and all other provisions of this Subdivision Code; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The General Plan designates the site RT (Two-unit residential) allowing up to two units per lot. The subdivision results in the creation of single family development on each lot, which is allowed in the RT land use category. If the site were redeveloped in the future, duplex development could result consistent with the RT land use category. 2. The subdivision is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 4.2 without a General Plan Amendment as the existing lot was originally two RT lots that were legally merged pursuant to a parcel map. Subdividing the property creates two lots and each lot could be developed with a 2-unit structure pursuant to the RT land use category and R-2 zoning designation. Therefore, the resulting density would not exceed what the General Plan would permit if the existing buildings were demolished and the site redeveloped in accordance with the original underlying lots. 3. The site is not located within a specific plan area. 4. The Subdivision Map Act requires subdivisions to be consistent with the General Plan, and local subdivision regulations. The subdivision would create lots that do not meet the minimum lot size; however, deviations from lot design standards can be considered pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.130 (Deviation from Design Standards) provided specific findings can be met. The required determination and findings pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.130 are supported by facts as set forth in this Resolution No. 2045 Page 5 of 13 Resolution. The findings and facts in support of Findings A and B above are incorporated by reference Finding: G. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will not be materially detrimental to the residents or tenants of the proposed subdivision or surrounding properties, nor to public health or safety. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The resulting lot configuration is similar to other reoriented lots that front Bayside Drive and reflects the current development. 2. No new construction is planned given the recent construction of the structures, no subdivision improvements are required, and no changes to existing pedestrian or vehicular access would occur. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070(A) (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the Planning Commission finds: Finding: H. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: Facts in support of Finding E are restated and incorporated by reference. Finding: 1. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The lot is 7,209 square feet and is currently developed with two condominium units that fully conform to the R-2 zone development standards. The subdivision would result in two single family lots based upon the current condition; however, each lot could be redeveloped in the future with a duplex provided they met applicable zoning standards including required parking. 2. The subject property is accessible from Heliotrope Avenue and Bayside Drive and an alley at the rear opposite Heliotrope Avenue. The site is served by existing utilities from the alley and Bayside Drive. Resolution No. 2045 Page 6 of 13 Finding: J. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 29081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The site is currently developed with a two-unit condominium constructed in 2015 and all necessary public improvements and utilities are currently in place to support the development. The subdivision is not likely to lead to new construction during the economic life of the current structures. 2. The property is developed and is located in an urbanized area and the lot does not contain any sensitive vegetation or habitat. Bayside Park abuts the project site and is comprised of ornamental landscaping. 3. The project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) 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. The proposed subdivision and proposed alternative setbacks as conditioned will only change the form of ownership of the existing units and will not result in new construction or increased density compared to the General Plan. Future redevelopment or conversion of the existing units creating duplexes would also be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 or 15303 (New construction) given the limited number of units in an urbanized area. Finding: K. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for residential purposes (single-family or possibly future duplex development) allowed by the RT (Two-family) land use category of the General Plan. 2. All improvements associated with the project comply with required Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Resolution No. 2045 Page 7 of 13 3. Public improvements are not required give that all necessary public improvements are already in place. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with. Findin : L. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: The subdivision and design of development will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed development, because there are no public easements located on the property. Finding: M. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act because, the subject property is not designated or used for agricultural purposes. 2. The site, developed for residential use, is located within a Zoning District that permits residential uses. Finding: N. That, in the case of a `land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Resolution No. 2045 Page 8 of 13 1. California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 was repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a "land project" as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land nor is it located within the boundaries of a specific plan. Finding: O. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. 2. The design of the proposed subdivision provides a southern solar exposure for both lots. 3. The City of Newport Beach has not adopted an ordinance in accordance with Section 66475.3 Subdivision Map Act to require solar access easements; therefore Section 66475.3 is not applicable. Finding: P. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subdivision would not change the density of development during the economic life of the existing units constructed in 2015. 2. The subdivision is for residential purposes and would allow for an increase in density from two units to four units with redevelopment in the future consistent with applicable land use regulations. Therefore, the Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed condominiums will not affect the City in meeting its regional housing need. Resolution No. 2045 Page 9 of 13 Finding: Q. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subdivision is for residential purposes and not commercial or industrial development. The subdivision developed and designed such that wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system complies with applicable City standards and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. Finding: R. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of chapter three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: _ 1. The subject property is entirely within the Coastal Zone and the site is designated RT (Two-unit Residential) and allows single-family or duplex development. The site is not located along the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean or Newport Harbor where public access would be otherwise required. The site is located abutting Bayside Park, which is within the dedicated public right-of-way of Bayside Park. The subdivision will not directly lead to new construction within the economic life of the existing units built in 2015, therefore, no significant effect upon access to Bayside Park is anticipated. 2. The subdivision could allow conversion of the existing single—family units or redevelopment with duplexes entirely within the existing project boundaries provided they met all standards of the R-2 zoning district. In this way, no significant effect to Bayside Park or public access thereto would result with approval of the subdivision. The Municipal Code does not set forth any required findings for the approval of Alternative Setbacks pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.110(C). The Planning Commission finds: Finding: S. The design and orientation of the existing lot and the application of the setback areas are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Sixteen lots within six blocks along Bayside Drive are the result of combining two or three lots creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The Resolution No. 2045 Page 10 of 13 resulting development pattern created takes better advantage of the existing topography allowing homes to step down the slope perpendicular to the topography. 2. The application of standard setbacks to 2820 Bayside Drive would require a 20-foot setback to Bayside Drive and 10-foot rear setback to the north resulting in a 30-foot buildable lot depth. These setbacks and reduced buildable area are inconsistent with typical 4-foot setbacks for nearby reoriented lots along Bayside Drive allowing 50 or more feet of buildable lot depth. The proposed 3-foot east side setback ensures compliance with the Building Code and the 5-foot west side (alley) setback would remain unchanged from the existing condition. 3. The application of standard setbacks to 401 Heliotrope Avenue would require a 10-foot rear setback opposite the street, which is inconsistent with the 7-foot setback that would be provided. The three other setbacks for this lot would remain unchanged. 4. The application of the alternative setbacks is necessary to ensure that the existing buildings comply with setback and floor area regulations with the approval of the proposed subdivision. Finding: T. The alternative setbacks identified would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The alternative setbacks identified reflect existing development that is compatible with the area. 2. Conditions of approval would prohibit the buildings from expanding or extending the buildings into the zero-foot Bayside Drive setback or the 10-foot separation between the existing buildings to maintain existing building locations and massing and to maintain a separation to Bayside Park. 3. The resulting floor area to lot area ratio of 1.027 and 1.184 is a nominal change from the current 1.098 for the un-subdivided. The ratio is also comparable to the ratio that a typical CdM lot that would provide (0.946) with a 15-foot front yard setback. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 (PA2016-006) subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Resolution No. 2045 Page 11 of 13 2. The approval of the tentative parcel map shall become final and effective 10 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Chapter 19.12 (Tentative Map Review). 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Staff Approval No. SA 2016-020 establishing alternative setbacks for the lots in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) as follows: Parcell Parcel 2 2820 Bayside Dr. 401 Heliotrope Ave. Front 0 feet to Bayside 15 feet to Heliotrope Side 5 feet to alley 4 feet to north Side 3 feet to east 0 feet to Bayside Dr. Rear 1 4 feet to north 3 feet to west 4. The approval of the alternative setbacks in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the NBMC Chapter 20.26 (Appeals or Calls for Review). AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Weigand and Dunlap NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hillgren ABSENT: Zak BY: 4 Kory Kr er hairman BY: eter Zak, ecretary Resolution No. 2045 Page 12 of 13 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived, modified or limited by the conditions of approval. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 4. Subsequent to the recordation of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall apply for a building permit for both 401 Heliotrope Avenue and 2820 Bayside Drive for a description change of from "condominium" to single family residential. The applicant is also responsible for filing any necessary documents with the California Bureau of Real Estate and the County of Orange to document the elimination of any condominium plan or condominium status. 5. After recordation of the final parcel map and prior to the issuance of building permits for the description change pursuant to Condition 4, an updated encroachment agreement shall be recorded against the new lots for the existing private improvements/landscaping within the abutting rights-of-way. All applicable fees for the processing and recordation of the agreement shall be paid by the applicant. 6. The existing units shall not be expanded or extended into the zero-foot setback area along Bayside Drive. 7. The existing units shall not be expanded or extended into the 10-foot area that separates the two existing units. 8. A parcel map shall be recorded. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's computer-aided design and drafting standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 9. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. Resolution No. 2045 Page 13 of 13 10. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 11. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setbacks including, but not limited to, Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 and Staff Approval No. SA 2016-020 (PA2016-006). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.