Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination PA2013-176CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C9C/F00.��P Cully C®UAIP cH Staff Deport Agenda Item No. 15 January 28, 2014 - TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949-644-3226, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner APPROVED: v \ TITLE: Appeal of the PlanrA Commission's Approval of the Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination and Relief Request from Council Policy L-2 Located at 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front (PA2013-176) ABSTRACT An appeal of the Planning Commission's November 21, 2013, decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Alternative Setback Determination No. SA2013-011. The Lot Merger, including a request to waive the parcel map requirement, would combine two parcels into one lot for single -unit residential development. The Alternative Setback Determination, which is intended in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the standard setbacks are not consistent with other lots in the vicinity, would establish all setbacks generally consistent with adjacent properties. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision due to Condition of Approval No. 5 requiring the elimination of an existing curb cut and one of the approved setbacks along 6th Street. The applicant further requests relief from Council Policy L-2 regarding the retention of a curb cut on 6th Street. 1. Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2. Find that the action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2014- 5 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Alternative Setback Determination No. SA2013-011 and deny the request for relief from City Council Policy L-2 (Attachment No. CC 1). 2 Appeal — Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) January 28, 2014 Page 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS There is no fiscal impact related to this item. Project Setting The subject properties are located on the Balboa Peninsula on West Ocean Front and 6th Street. Each lot is developed with a single -unit residential dwelling. The 106 6th Street lot is 2,100 square feet in area (30' X 70') and the 524 West Ocean Front lot is 3,150 square feet in area (35' X 90'). The typical lots in the area are 30 feet in width and 70 feet in depth; however, several lots in the area are wider than 30 feet. Project Description The Lot Merger application would result in one 5,250 -square -foot lot for single -unit residential development. The 106 6th Street lot is developed with a single -unit dwelling with alley at the rear. The 524 West Ocean Front lot is developed with a single -unit dwelling with two one -car garages accessed from 6th Street. One unit would be demolished as part of the Lot Merger project. The applicant requests the Alternative Setback Determination to establish setbacks other than the default setbacks that would be required for the merged lot. Background Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On November 21, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed the applicant's request, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 approving the application (Attachment No. CC 3). The meeting minutes summarizing the discussion are provided as Attachment No. CC 4. The attorney, architect, and co-owner of the property all spoke on behalf of the applicant, describing the proposed project and the intent to redevelop the property. Two areas of disagreement were discussed; first, the requirement to eliminate an existing curb cut on 6th Street and second, the approved setbacks along 6th Street. The Planning Commission approved the Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination as recommended by staff. The approved setbacks are shown in Exhibit "B" of Resolution No. 1925 and later in this report. The Commission's approval included the elimination of the curb cut and additional on -street parking as facts in support of the required findings for the Lot Merger. 2 Appeal — Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) January 28, 2014 Page 3 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision On November 22, 2013, the property owner, Morgan Davis, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, requesting the retention of the existing curb cut on 6th Street and a reduction of the 8 -foot wide setback area along 6th Street. The applicant stated that the curb cut would allow the property to be developed with four -car parking without having tandem parking accessed from the alley, which is difficult with the T - intersection and 10 -foot alley width. The applicant also stated that the elongation of the 8 -foot wide setback area creates design challenges on the first floor. Additional information is included in the appeal description (Attachment No. CC 5). In conjunction with the appeal, the applicant requests relief from Council Policy L-2 that would require the elimination of the existing curb cut when the property is redeveloped. After the hearing, staff received correspondence in support of the applicant's appeal request (Attachment No. CC 6). Analysis An in-depth analysis of the proposed project is included in the Planning Commission staff report from November 21, 2013 (Attachment No. CC 7). The following analysis will focus on the three items contained in the appeal. Retention of Existing Curb Cut on 6tt' Street If the Lot Merger is approved, the merged lot would have alley access. Consistent with City policies, future redevelopment of the property would be required to provide vehicular access from the alley and the curb cut on 6th Street would need to be closed. The elimination of the curb cut is addressed in the following City Policies: General Plan Policies CE 7.1.11 and 7.1.12 Curb Cuts Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on -street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create on street parking spaces wherever feasible. Alley Access Require alley access to parking areas for all new development in areas where alley access exists. General Plan Policy LU 6.16.3 Property Access Minimize driveways and curb cuts that interrupt the continuity of street -facing building elevations in pedestrian -oriented districts and locations of high traffic volumes, prioritizing their location on side streets and alleys, where feasible. 3 Appeal — Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) January 28, 2014 Page 4 Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.9.3-10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on -street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. Council Policy L-2 Driveway Approaches Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley. The applicant's proposed design for the merged lot includes the relocation of the existing curb cut to the north towards West Balboa Boulevard as depicted in Attachment No. CC 8. The applicant has stated his intent to demolish the existing house at 106 6th Street, which is the lot that has alley access at the rear. The relocation of the curb cut would not result in any additional on -street parking, as shown in Table 1, which compares the number of on -street parking spaces that would be provided under different curb cut configurations. Table 1 — On -Street Parking Comparison Curb Cut Configuration On -Street Parkin Existing Curb Cut 5 spaces Applicant's Proposal 5 spaces Elimination of Curb Cut 6 spaces The merged lot could be redeveloped with a three- or four -car tandem garage with vehicular access from the alley, which is common throughout the City, especially on the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar. As reflected in Condition of Approval No. 5, the Planning Commission required the elimination of the curb cut on 6th Street consistent with City policy, and thereby requiring vehicular access for the merged lot be taken from the alley. The removal of the curb cut improves pedestrian safety and also increases on -street parking. Additionally, the elimination of the curb cut supports the findings required to approve the Lot Merger application. Council Policy L-2 Council Policy L-2 (Attachment No. CC 9) is implemented by Public Works Department staff when a property owner applies for a building permit to redevelop. The policy requires the elimination of a street curb cut when alley access exists. Although the applicant has not yet submitted building plans, Condition of Approval No. 5 regarding the curb cut was included as part of the Lot Merger approval to inform the applicant of the requirement. Because of the proposed project and other relevant City policies regarding curb cuts, the applicant's request for relief from Policy L-2 is being reviewed concurrently with this appeal. 4 Appeal — Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) January 28, 2014 Page 5 Public Works staff has reviewed the request to reconstruct the curb cut on 6th Street and does not support the applicant's request due to the ability to provide vehicular access from the public alley. The subject property is not considered a corner lot in regards to having vehicular access on two (2) public streets and a public alley. The removal of the curb cut along 6th Street would improve pedestrian safety and create one new public on - street parking space (5 spaces currently versus 6 spaces that would exist). Alternative Setback Determination The default, applicant proposed, and Planning Commission approved setbacks are shown in the figure below. The Planning Commission approved the continuation of the 8 -foot setback along 6th Street for an additional seven feet (total of 40 feet) in order to help soften the view of the structure from 6th Street and maintain some of the open space that would be lost due to the proposed merged lot. Additionally, the larger, longer setback area would allow increased building modulation and articulation. The merged lot would have 120 feet of street frontage along 6th Street and it was felt that additional setback area would moderate the larger size of future development, making it more compatible with the area. Default Setbacks Applicant Proposed Planning Commission Approval 5 Appeal — Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) January 28, 2014 Page 6 Alternatives Should the City Council determine not to uphold the Planning Commission's action, any of the following actions may be taken: 1. Grant the appeal, and approve the applicant's request to delete Condition of Approval No. 5, relief from Council Policy L-2 and the applicant's requested alternative setbacks. The attached draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 2) will implement this option. 2. Approve a modified project and direct staff to prepare a resolution and continue the item to a future meeting date. 3. Deny the entire application based upon findings that the project is incompatible with the community, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the project and continue the item to a future meeting date. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff recommends the City Council find the project to be categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) Guidelines — Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), which exempts minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The subject property has an average slope of less than 20 percent, and the proposed project would merge the lots and alter the required setbacks, but will not result in a physical change to the existing lot, or any changes in land use or density. 0 Appeal — Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) January 28, 2014 Page 7 NOTICING Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of- way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Submitted by: yk",zt- Kimberly AICP Director Attachments: CC 1. CC 2. CC 3. CC 4. CC 5. CC 6. CC 7. CC 8. CC 9. CC 10. Draft Resolution — Approve and Uphold Draft Resolution — Approve as Appealed Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Minutes from November 21, 2013 Applicant's Appeal Description Correspondence Received Staff Report from November 21, 2013 Curb Cut Exhibit Council Policy L-2 Lot Merger Exhibit rW, q Attachment No. CC 1 Draft Resolution —Approve and Uphold I 10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2013-003 AND STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2013-011 FOR A LOT MERGER AND ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION AND DENY THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM COUNCIL POLICY L-2 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 106 6TH STREET AND 524 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2013-176). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Morgan Davis, with respect to property located at 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 15, Block 10, East Newport Tract and Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment LLA2001-008, requesting approval of a Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. 2. The applicant proposes to merge the two lots and requests a waiver of the parcel map requirement. The applicant also requests an Alternative Setback Determination to establish all required setbacks for the merged lot. 3. The subject properties are designated as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) in the General Plan Land Use Element and are located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone and the Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -C). 5. Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C) states that in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Community Development Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. In this case, so that surrounding property owners would be notified of the application, staff referred the request to the Planning Commission for consideration and final action. 6. A public hearing was held on October 24, 2013, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, related to the requested Lot Merger only. 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 Zoning Administrator at this meeting. The Zoning Administrator referred the Lot Merger application to the Planning Commission to allow for concurrent review with the Alternative Setback Determination. 21 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 10 7. A public hearing was held on November 21, 2013, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1925 approving the Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. 8. On November 22, 2013, property owner Morgan Davis filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action due to one of the approved setbacks and the condition of approval requiring the elimination of the curb cut along 6th Street. 9. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 28, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The proposed project would merge the lots and alter the required setbacks, but will not result in a physical change to the existing lot or structure, or any changes in land use or density. 3. The City Council 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. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Lot Merger In accordance with Section 19.68.030 and 19.08.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth in regards to the subject lot merger: 12 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 3 of 10 Finding: A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. Facts in Support of Finding: A-1. The lot merger to combine two existing legal lots by removing the interior lot line between the lots will not result in the creation of additional parcels. A-2. The project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent. A-3. Pursuant to Municipal Code requirements, redevelopment of the property will require vehicular access from the alley and closure of an existing curb cut on 6th Street creating additional on -street parking. A-4. The future development on the proposed parcel will be subject to the Zoning Code development standards, including, floor area, setback requirements, and 3 -car garage parking for a house with over 4,000 square feet of floor area. A-5. The Alternative Setback Determination will ensure that setback requirements and future development on the merged lot are consistent with surrounding properties and will provide adequate space for vehicle maneuverability in the alley. Finding: B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The two lots to be merged are under common fee ownership. Finding: C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The merged lot will retain the Single -Unit Residential zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area. The R-1 Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a detached single-family residential dwelling units located on a single lot. 13 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 4 of 10 C-2. A minimum of one (1) single -unit dwelling located on the subject lots will be demolished prior to recordation of the Lot Merger, resulting in the merged lot containing one (1) dwelling unit, consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code. C-3. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. C-4. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which applies to a range of single-family residential dwelling units. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Detatched (RSD -C) which provides for density ranges from 10.0-19.9 dwelling units per acre. The land use will remain the same and the merger is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. C-5. Future redevelopment of the property will provide vehicular access from the alley, consistent with General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. C-6. The subject property is not located within a Specific Plan area. Finding: D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The lots as merged will not be deprived of legal access as the merged lot will abut a street, an alley, and a beach front walk. D-2. No adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. The public alleys were developed to provide vehicular access for the properties located in the area, and vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain via existing public alleys. Finding: E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this finding, the review authority may consider the following: 14 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 5 of 10 a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate from the pattern of development of adjacent and/or adjoining lots in a manner that would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties. b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or general orientation of adjacent and/or adjoining lots. c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The house that could be constructed on the merged lot would be longer than most houses in the area as viewed from 6th Street, but the project views from the alley and West Ocean Front would remain unchanged and would be typical for the area. The overall length of what could be developed from the vantage point of 6th Street is mitigated by a larger setback by providing enhanced building articulation and open space. 2. Several lots in the area have been reoriented to front on West Ocean Front and West Balboa Boulevard, and 6th Street has both front and sides of residential lots and structures facing the street; therefore, the merger would not result in development that is inconsistent with the neighborhood. 3. The standard lot size of lots in the area is 30 feet by 70 feet (2,100 square feet), with nearby lots ranging from 1,830 to 6,289 square feet in area. The lots as merged will result in a 5,250 -square -foot parcel that is larger than the typical lot in the area, but smaller than the minimum 6,000 -square -foot lot size requirement of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the lots as merged will not create an excessively large lot that would be incompatible with the surrounding development. 4. While the lots in the immediate vicinity are typically 70 or 90 feet deep, a 120 -foot deep lot is not a significant deviation to the pattern of development to the unreasonable detriment of surrounding properties. 5. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. Finding: F. The proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. 15 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 6 of 10 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Future improvements on the site will be required to comply with the development standards of the Municipal Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed lot merger combines the properties into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than one lot. 3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot line, and allow the property to be used as a single site. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. The subject property is not subject to a Specific Plan. Alternative Setback Determination In accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C), the following findings are set forth in regards to the subject Alternative Setback Determination: 1. The Municipal Code does not set forth any required findings for the approval of Alternative Setback Determinations. The application was reviewed for compatibility with the neighborhood based on setback area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other development standards, to ensure that alternative setbacks do not result in development that would be incompatible with and not detrimental to the neighborhood. 2. The application of the standard Single -Unit Residential (R-1) setbacks will result in a buildable area inconsistent with other lots in the vicinity and in the R-1 Zoning District by establishing a 10 -foot rear setback adjacent to a side setback and a 3 -foot side setback along a narrow alley when typically a rear yard setback of 5 feet would be required. 3. The alternative setback determination will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley will improve vehicular maneuverability in the alley and be consistent with how typical alley setbacks are regulated. The 3 -foot interior side setback and 8 -foot front setback requirements are consistent with surrounding properties. The 8 -foot street side setback will increase building articulation and open space mitigating the overall length of the building as viewed from 6th Street. The application of the alternative setbacks will allow development of the property with a floor area ratio that is comparable with nearby lots. Council Policy L-2 In accordance with City Council Policy L-2, the following findings are set forth in regards to the relief from Council Policy L-2: 1% City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 7 of 10 1. Council Policy L-2 does not allow vehicular access from a street where a property has adequate access from a public alley. The merged lot abuts a public alley and can provide adequate vehicular access without the the curb cut on 6th Street. The subject property is not considered a corner lot in regards to having vehicular access on two (2) public streets and a public alley. [.9xK�[�P►[��]x�169[�P►1 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby resolves as follows: Approve Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013-011, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A and subject to the setbacks set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. Deny relief from Council Policy L-2. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 28T" DAY OF JANUARY, 2014, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, TO -WIT: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS IG1 �9��IrK�1�P►[yl���il�bl:3'�:i. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 8 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the property owner or the leasing agent. 3. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, one or both dwelling units shall be demolished to ensure that no more than one (1) single -unit dwelling exists on the merged lot. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for cstruction to cross the existing interior lot line between the two lots proposed to Vit; merged, recordation of the lot merger documents with the County Recorder shall be required. 5. Prior to the final of any building permit or ificate of occupancy, the curb cut on 6th Street shall be closed. 6. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley shall remain free and clear of any obstructions. There shall be no parking of vehicles within the 5 -foot setback. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 9. Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 10. 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 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination including, but not limited to, the Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval SA2013- 011. 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 NO City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 9 of 10 shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 19 WEST BALBOA BLVD. LU LU ti EXHIBIT "B" 70' :................................ ....:_ € 523 Buildable Area: ©` 1,368 sf ........................ ©............. ..................... :106 � o Buildable Area: 3,768 sf .......40 ............. 0 Buildable Area: 2,233 sf 4'© 0 :....................524: :....................522: r 0 35' 35' WEST OCEAN FRONT 524 West Ocean Front and 106 6th Street PA2013-176 Determination of Alternative Setback Area Locations 0 10 20 mommocz= Feet 0 N.. Attachment No. CC 2 Draft Resolution — Approve as Appealed 21 22 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2013-003 AND STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2013-011 FOR A LOT MERGER AND ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION AND PROVIDING RELIEF FROM COUNCIL POLICY L-2 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 106 6T" STREET AND 524 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2013-176). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Morgan Davis, with respect to property located at 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 15, Block 10, East Newport Tract and Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment LLA2001-008, requesting approval of a Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. 2. The applicant proposes to merge the two lots and requests a waiver of the parcel map requirement. The applicant also requests an Alternative Setback Determination to establish all required setbacks for the merged lot. 3. The subject properties are designated as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) in the General Plan Land Use Element and are located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone and the Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -C). 5. Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C) states that in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Community Development Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. In this case, so that surrounding property owners would be notified of the application, staff referred the request to the Planning Commission for consideration and final action. 6. A public hearing was held on October 24, 2013, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, related to the requested Lot Merger only. 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 Zoning Administrator at this meeting. The Zoning Administrator referred the Lot Merger application to the Planning Commission to allow for concurrent review with the Alternative Setback Determination. 23 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 10 7. A public hearing was held on November 21, 2013, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1925 approving the Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. 8. On November 22, 2013, property owner Morgan Davis filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action due to one of the approved setbacks and the condition of approval requiring the elimination of the curb cut along 6th Street. 9. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 28, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The proposed project would merge the lots and alter the required setbacks, but will not result in a physical change to the existing lot or structure, or any changes in land use or density. 3. The City Council 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. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Lot Merger In accordance with Section 19.68.030 and 19.08.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth in regards to the subject lot merger: 24 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 3 of 10 Finding: A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. Facts in Support of Finding: The lot merger to combine two existing legal lots by removing the interior lot line between the lots will not result in the creation of additional parcels. 2. The project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent. 3. The future development on the proposed parcel will be subject to the Zoning Code development standards, including, floor area, setback requirements, and 3 -car garage parking for a house with over 4,000 square feet of floor area. 4. The Alternative Setback Determination will ensure that"etback requirements and future development on the merged lot are consistent with surrounding properties and will provide adequate space for vehicle maneuverability in the alley. Finding: B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The two lots to be merged are under common fee ownership. Finding: C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: The merged lot will retain the Single -Unit Residential zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area. The R-1 Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a detached single-family residential dwelling units located on a single lot. 2. A minimum of one (1) single -unit dwelling located on the subject lots will be demolished prior to recordation of the Lot Merger, resulting in the merged lot containing one (1) 25 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 4 of 10 dwelling unit, consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code. 3. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. 4. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which applies to a range of single-family residential dwelling units. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Detatched (RSD -C) which provides for density ranges from 10.0-19.9 dwelling units per acre. The land use will remain the same and the merger is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. 5. The subject property is not located within a Specific Plan area. Finding: D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining pare,Vill be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The lots as merged will not be deprived of legal access as the merged lot will abut a street, an alley, and a beach front walk. 2. No adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. The public alleys were developed to provide vehicular access for the properties located in the area, and vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain via existing public alleys. Finding: E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this finding, the review authority may consider the following: a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate from the pattern of development of adjacent and/or adjoining lots in a manner that would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties. b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or general orientation of adjacent and/or adjoining lots. c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the zoning district. 20 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 5 of 10 Facts in Support of Finding: The house that could be constructed on the merged lot would be longer than most houses in the area as viewed from 6th Street, but the project views from the alley and West Ocean Front would remain unchanged and would be typical for the area. The overall length of what could be developed from the vantage point of 6th Street is mitigated by a larger setback by providing enhanced building articulation and open space. 2. Several lots in the area have been reoriented to front on West Ocean Front and West Balboa Boulevard, and 6th Street has both front and sides of residential lots and structures facing the street; therefore, the merger would not result in development that is inconsistent with the neighborhood. 3. The standard lot size of lots in the area is 30 feet by 70 feet (2,100 square feet), with nearby lots ranging from 1,830 to 6,289 square feet in area. The lots as merged will result in a 5,250 -square -foot parcel that is larger than the typical lot in the area, but smaller than the minimum 6,000 -square -foot lot size requirement of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the lots as merged will not create an excessively large lot that would be incompatible with the surrounding development. 4. While the lots in the immediate vicinity are typically 70 or 90 feet deep, a 120 -foot deep lot is not a significant deviation to the pattern of development to the unreasonable detriment of surrounding properties. 5. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. Finding: F. The proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: Future improvements on the site will be required to comply with the development standards of the Municipal Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed lot merger combines the properties into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than one lot. 27 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 6 of 10 3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot line, and allow the property to be used as a single site. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. The subject property is not subject to a Specific Plan. Alternative Setback Determination In accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C), the following findings are set forth in regards to the subject Alternative Setback Determination: 1. The Municipal Code does not set forth any required findings for the approval of Alternative Setback Determinations. The application was reviewed for compatibility with the neighborhood based on setback area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other development standards, to ensure that alternative setbacks do not result in development that would be incompatible with and not detrimental to the neighborhood. 2. The application of the standard Single -Unit Residential*-, 1 ) setbacks will result in a buildable area inconsistent with other lots in the vicinity and in the R-1 Zoning District by establishing a 10 -foot rear setback adjacent to a side setback and a 3 -foot side setback along a narrow alley when typically a rear yard setback of 5 feet would be required. I 3. The alternative setback determnation�wlf not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley will improve vehicular maneuverability in the alley and be consistent with how typical alley setbacks are regulated. The 3 -foot interior side setback and 8 -foot front setback requirements are consistent with surrounding properties. The 8 -foot street side setback will increase building articulation and open space mitigating the overall length of the building as viewed from 6th Street. The application of the alternative setbacks will allow development of the property with a floor area ratio that is comparable with nearby lots. Council Policy L-2 Council Policy L-2 does not allow vehicular access from a street where a property has adequate access from a public alley. The following findings are set forth in regards to relief from Council Policy L-2: 1 NO City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 7 of 10 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1. Approve Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013-011, approving the appeal, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A and subject to the setbacks set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. Approve relief from Council Policy L-2, allowing a curb cut on 6tH Street. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, TO -WIT: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS YOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 29 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 8 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the property owner or the leasing agent. 3. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, one or both dwelling units shall be demolished to ensure that no more than one (1) single -unit dwelling exists on the merged lot. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction to cross the existing interior lot line between the two lots proposed to be merged, recordation of the lot merger documents with the County Recorder shall be required. 5. The reconstructed curb cut shall have a maximum width of 17 feet for the approach bottom and a maximum width of 23 feet for the curb opening, subject to approval of the Public Works Department. 6. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley shall remain free and clear of any obstructions. There shall be no parking of vehicles within the 5 -foot setback. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 9. Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 10. 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 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination including, but not limited to, the Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval SA2013- 011. 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 30 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 9 of 10 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. Z\ 31 WEST BALBOA BLVD. LU LUZ CO EXHIBIT "B" 70' :.................................... € 523 Buildable Area: ©` 1,368 sf ........................ ©---.......... :106 Buildable Area: 3,803 sf WEST OCEAN FRONT Buildable Area: 2,233 sf 524 : :....................522: 35' 35' 524 West Ocean Front and 106 6th Street PA2013-176 Determination of Alternative Setback Area Locations 0 10 20 mommocz= Feet 0 N.. Attachment No. CC 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 33 RESOLUTION NO. 1925 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2013-003 AND STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2013-011 FOR A LOT MERGER AND ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION LOCATED AT 106 6TH STREET AND 524 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2013-176) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Morgan Davis, with respect to property located at'106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 15, Block 10, East Newport Tract and Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment LLA2001-008 requesting approval of a Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. The applicant proposes to merge the two lots and requests a waiver of the parcel map requirement. The applicant also requests an Alternative Setback Determination to establish all required setbacks for the merged lot. The subject properties are designated as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) in the General Plan Land Use Element and are located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone and the Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -C). Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C) states that in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Community Development Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. In this case, so that surrounding property owners would be notified of the application, the Community Development Director referred the request to the Planning Commission for consideration and final action. A public hearing was held on October 24, 2013, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, related to the requested Lot Merger only. 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 Zoning Administrator at this meeting. The Zoning Administrator referred the Lot Merger application to the Planning Commission to allow for concurrent review with the Alternative Setback Determination. 315 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Page 2 of 10 A public hearing was held on November 21, 2013, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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 project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The proposed project would merge the lots and alter the required setbacks, but will not result in a physical change to the existing lot or structure, or any changes in land use or density. 3. 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. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Lot Merger In accordance with Section 19.68.030 and 19.08.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth in regards to the subject lot merger: Finding: A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. Facts in Support of Finding: The lot merger to combine two existing legal lots by removing the interior lot line between the lots will not result in the creation of additional parcels. 08-09-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Page 3 of 10 2. The project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent. 3. Pursuant to Municipal Code requirements, redevelopment of the property will require vehicular access from the alley and closure of an existing curb cut on 6th Street creating additional on -street parking. 4. The future development on the proposed parcel will be subject to the Zoning Code development standards, including, floor area, setback requirements, and 3 -car garage parking fora house with over 4,000 square feet of floor area. The Alternative Setback Determination will ensure that setback requirements and future development on the merged lot are consistent with surrounding properties and will provide adequate space for vehicle maneuverability in the alley. Finding: B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: The two lots to be merged are under common fee ownership. Finding: C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: The merged lot will retain the Single -Unit Residential zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area. The R-1 Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a detached single-family residential dwelling units located on a single lot. 2. A minimum of one (1) single -unit dwelling located on the subject lots will be demolished prior to recordation of the Lot Merger, resulting in the merged lot containing one (1) dwelling unit, consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code. 3. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. 08-09-2013 s'7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Page 4 of 10 4. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which applies to a range of single-family residential dwelling units. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Deatched (RSD -C) which provides for density ranges from 10.0-19.9 dwelling units per acre. The land use will remain the same and the merger is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. 5. Future redevelopment of the property will provide vehicular access from the alley, consistent with General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. 6. The subject property is not located within a Specific Plan area. Finding: D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: The lots as merged will not be deprived of legal access as the merged lot will abut a street, an alley, and a beach front walk. No adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. The public alleys were developed to provide vehicular access for the properties located in the area, and vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain via existing public alleys. Finding: E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this finding, the review authority may consider the following: a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate from the pattern of development of adjacent and/or adjoining lots in a manner that would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties. b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or general orientation of adjacent and/or adjoining lots. c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: The house that could be constructed on the merged lot would be longer than most houses in the area as viewed from 6th Street, but the project views from the alley and West Ocean Front would remain unchanged and would be typical for the area. The overall length of what could be developed from the vantage point of 6th Street is 08-09-2013 �� Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Pape 5 of 10 mitigated by a larger setback by providing enhanced building articulation and open space. 2. Several lots in the area have been reoriented to front on West Ocean Front and West Balboa Boulevard, and 6th Street has both front and sides of residential lots and structures facing the street; therefore, the merger would not result in development that is inconsistent with the neighborhood. 3. The standard lot size of lots in the area is 30 feet by 70 feet (2,100 square feet), with nearby lots ranging from 1,830 to 6,289 square feet in area. The lots as merged will result in a 5,250 -square -foot parcel that is larger than the typical lot in the area, but smaller than the minimum 6,000 -square -foot lot size requirement of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the lots as merged will not create an excessively large lot that would be incompatible with the surrounding development. 4. While the lots in the immediate vicinity are typically 70 or 90 feet deep, a 120 -foot deep lot is not a significant deviation to the pattern of development to the unreasonable detriment of surrounding properties. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. Finding: F. The proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: Future improvements on the site will be required to comply with the development standards of the Municipal Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed lot merger combines the properties into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than one lot. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot line, and allow the property to be used as a single site. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. The subject property is not subject to a Specific Plan. 08-09-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Page 6 of 10 Alternative Setback Determination In accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C), the following findings are set forth in regards to the subject Alternative Setback Determination: The Municipal Code does not set forth any required findings for the approval of Alternative Setback Determinations. The application was reviewed for compatibility with the neighborhood based on setback area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other development standards, to ensure that alternative setbacks do not result in development that would be incompatible with and not detrimental to the neighborhood. The application of the standard Single -Unit Residential (R-1) setbacks will result in a buildable area inconsistent with other lots in the vicinity and in the R-1 Zoning District by establishing a 10 -foot rear setback adjacent to a side setback and a 3 -foot side setback along a narrow alley when typically a rear yard setback of 5 feet would be required. The alternative setback determination will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley will improve vehicular maneuverability in the alley and be consistent with how typical alley setbacks are regulated. The 3 -foot interior side setback and 8 -foot front setback requirements are consistent with surrounding properties. The 8 -foot street side setback will increase building articulation and open space mitigating the overall length of the building as viewed from 6th Street. The application of the alternative setbacks will allow development of the property with a floor area ratio that is comparable with nearby lots. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013-011, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A and subject to the setbacks set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. The Lot Merger action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 19 Subdivisions, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. The Alternative Setback Determination Staff Approval action shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 08-09-2013 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Paoe 7 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler m m 08-09-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the property owner or the leasing agent. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, one or both dwelling units shall be demolished to ensure that no more than one (1) single -unit dwelling exists on the merged lot. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction to cross the existing interior lot line between the two lots proposed to be merged, recordation of the lot merger documents with the County Recorder shall be required. Prior to the final of any building permit or certificate of occupancy, the curb cut on 6th Street shall be closed. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley shall remain free and clear of any obstructions. There shall be no parking of vehicles within the 5 -foot setback. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 9. Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 10. 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 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination including, but not limited to, the Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval SA2013- 011. 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 08-09-2013 42 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925 Paae 9 of 10 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. 08-09-2013 43 WEST BALBOA BLVD. LU LU ti EXHIBIT "B" 70' :................................ ....:_ € 523 Buildable Area: ©` 1,368 sf ........................ ©............. ..................... :106 � o Buildable Area: 3,768 sf .......40 ............. 0 Buildable Area: 2,233 sf 4'© 0 :....................524: :....................522: r 0 35' 35' WEST OCEAN FRONT 524 West Ocean Front and 106 6th Street PA2013-176 Determination of Alternative Setback Area Locations 0 10 20 mommocz= Feet 0 N.. Attachment No. CC 4 Minutes from November 21. 2013 45 40 By 1IF1 1y/ NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, November 21, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT EXCUSED: Kramer and Lawler 11/21/2013 Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner; Fern Nueno, Associate Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Hillgren invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission to do so at this time. There was no response and Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7. 2013 Chair Hillgren indicated that written comments were submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher with corrections to the subject minutes. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing none, Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (4 — 1 — 2) to approve the minutes of November 7, 2013, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTION: Myers ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 DAVIS LOT MERGER AND SETBACK DETERMINATION (PA2013-176) Site Location: 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front Associate Planner Fern Nueno presented a PowerPoint presentation and details of the report addressing location, existing conditions, typical lots in the area, and requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. She noted staff review of the application and demolition of one unit prior to the recordation of the merger, and added that the merger would increase consistency with the Zoning Code for some of the standards including lot area and lot width minimum requirements. She reported that the merged lot would have alley access and that redevelopment of the lot would require vehicle access from the alley. She addressed parking, the curb Page 1 of 7 47 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/21/2013 cut, default setbacks, alternative setback determination requested by the applicant, rear and alley setbacks, views, lot development standards, and recommendations. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding the setback along the alley, Ms. Nueno reported that the required setback is five (5) feet but is presently nonconforming at zero, and that correspondence was received indicating difficulty in making turns for personal and trash pickup vehicles. A five (5) foot setback would allow for increased maneuverability in the area. She added that the existing bollard mentioned in a correspondence letter is in the alley and that she will work with staff to see if something can be done to move the bollard off public property. In reply to Chair Hillgren's questions regarding setback allowances if the lots were not merged, Ms. Nueno indicated that the front setback would be eight (8) feet, the alley setback would be five (5) feet, and the side setbacks would be three (3) feet. Additionally she addressed staffs recommendation regarding the 10 -foot notch versus a 3 -foot notch and presented photos as examples of impacts to the view and discussed the increased building articulation and open space that would result from the 10 -foot notch. She noted variations in the lots in the area and commented on views from surrounding properties. Chair Hillgren commented on the applicant's request to retain the curb cut and Ms. Nueno stated that it exists. Removing the curb cut would increase available on -street parking and she noted applicable policies of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and the Council Policy Manual requiring the elimination of curb cuts whenever feasible. Chair Hillgren invited the applicant to address the Commission. Bill Steele, Attorney for the Applicant, addressed the curb cut elimination and noted it is important to the design and use of the property to retain the curb cut on 6`" Street. He added that the proposal is to move it slightly to the north, which would provide one more on -street parking space. The subject property has a lot of frontage on 6`" Street and little frontage on the alley so a three (3) or four (4) car garage cannot be built off the alley unless they provide tandem parking, which presents many challenges. He added that there is plenty of square footage on the lot for four (4) covered parking spaces but one access way is needed from the street. Mr. Steele referenced the policies and noted that the Commission has discretion to keep a curb cut and that the policies encourage protecting existing parking spaces as well as gains in parking. He addressed existing parking spaces, stated that the structure that will be demolished has no off-street parking, and that the proposal will provide a net gain to the City of two on -street parking spaces. Eric Moss, Architect, indicated that if the existing two -car garage is moved north into the merged lot, an additional parking space would be gained and another by the demolition of the existing structure. He stated that the proposal increases the feasibility of the project and commented on challenges with tandem parking in alleys. In response to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren regarding the setback determination, he stated preference for the 3 -foot notch. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Sandy Davis, property owner, explained that the proposed modifications are to accommodate visits from her large family. Jim Mosher commented on the resolution and necessary approvals and wondered if the project will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for their determination. Paula Knight, neighbor, voiced support for the proposed project. Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. Ms. Nueno stated that the project will be consistent with the Coastal Act and that a Coastal Development Permit will be required for any new development. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding the curb cut, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported that presently, without a plan being submitted, staff is basing the matter according to Council Policy L-2, which Page 2 of 7 42 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/21/2013 indicates that the curb cut on 6h Street would not be allowed. When a project comes through, a condition would be included for the curb cut to be closed. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that Council Policy L-2 provides a provision that application of the policy is appealable to City Council. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski noted that the findings must demonstrate how the project meets applicable policies. If the Commission were to allow the curb cut to remain that would need to be reflected and the Planning Commission does not have the discretion to eliminate or allow for curb cuts to be in place. Vice Chair Tucker noted the request before the Commission does not involve a house, but rather only involves a request to approve a lot merger. He added that there are conditions proposed to the lot merger, and suggested approving the lot merger. He added that the applicant could come back to the Planning Commission and seek to modify the conditions to the lot merger, specifically with respect to allowing a curb cut, when the applicant presents a plan for a house so any relief granted from the condition could be tied to an actual plan for a house. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated that the Commission does not have the authority to override Council policies. However, the Commission may, when a plan for a house is presented, recommend a curb cut at a specific location based upon that plan. Discussion followed regarding whether the curb cut can be supported by staff. It was noted that the curb cut can remain until the process continues; until there is a permit to build a home. Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (5 — 2) to adopt a resolution approving Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013-011. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler ITEM NO. 3 MIRAMAR DRIVE CODE AMENDMENT (PA2013-211) Site Location: 2022, 2026, 2032, 2034, 2038, and 2042 Miramar Drive Senior Planner Jaime Murillo presented a PowerPoint presentation and details of the report addressing the proposed code amendment, an overview of the purpose and intent of the alley setbacks requirement for alleys, existing encroachments and recommendations. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission regarding this matter, Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Vice Chair Tucker and carried (5 — 2) to adopt a resolution approving Code Amendment No. CA2013-006. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler ITEM NO.4 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE UPDATE (PA2012-057) Site Location: Citywide Principal Planner Jim Campbell presented details of the report, prior study sessions, public input, additional edits suggested by staff and Commissioner Tucker; and supplemental correspondence received from AT&T Page 3 of 7 4J 50 Attachment No. CC 5 Applicant's Appeal Description 51 152 Mr. and Mrs. Morgan & Sandy Davis 524 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 7, 2013 Honorable City Council Members City of Newport Beach RE: Appeal of Planning Commission's Conditions to Approval of Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Ladies and Gentlemen: On November 21, 2013, the Planning Commission approved our application for a Lot Merger of our adjacent properties at 524 West Ocean Front and 106 6ch St., subject to specified conditions and setback requirements. By our appeal, we respectfully request that you delete one condition and change one setback requirement. APPEAL OF ELIMNATION OF CURB CUT ON 6T" ST. We request that you remove the condition that requires us to close the curb cut on 6th St. Currently, we have one curb cut on 6`h St. for our existing garage, which is 25.5 feet wide. Also, on our side of 6th St., there are 4 off-street parking spaces (2 are located south of our driveway, toward West Ocean Front, and 2 are located north of our driveway, toward West Balboa Blvd). Because our new lot (106 6th St.) has 30 feet of alley frontage, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that we move all off-site parking access to the alley, in furtherance of your Policy L-2, which provides that "Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley." There is a stated exception to this policy for corner lots. "Corner lots" is not defined in the policy, but our lot is on the corner of 6`h St. and West Ocean Front so we have a corner lot. If our lot is a corner lot, then our request for a curb cut on 6`h St. fits within the stated exception. However, staff's position is our lot is not a corner lot because staff says lots that are on the corner of West Ocean Front are not corner lots for purposes of Policy L-2 because there is no vehicular traffic on West Ocean Front. The express language of the exception does not support staff's position. Even if our lot is not a corner lot for purposes of the policy's exception, the unique circumstances of our situation justify a variance from that policy for 3 reasons. The main reason for our variance request is our merged lots only have a total of 30 feet of alley frontage, and 120 feet of frontage on 6th St. With only 30 feet of alley frontage, we only have the width 153 for a 2 -car garage off the alley, and our proposed development's size requires 3 off-street parking spaces. This means that if our off-street parking access can come only from the alley, we will only be able to meet our parking requirement with tandem -style parking spaces. Tandem -style parking spaces present many logistical problems, and are more appropriate for developments that have square footage limitations, such as condominiums and apartments, limitations that our merged lots do not have. The second reason for our variance request is we will commit to a precise new location for our existing 6th St. curb cut, and to commit to shortening the width of our curb cut on 6th St. from its existing 25.5 feet to 17.75 feet, and as shown on the attached drawings these changes will create one new parking space on our side of 6th St. than currently exists (for a total of 5 instead of the current 4). The third reason for our variance is that if we can construct a garage on 6u St. as well as a garage on the alley, then the 6`h St. garage will reduce the mass and scale of our home from 6`h St. and give our home a much less "boxy" and more aesthetically pleasing appearance from 6th St. and West Balboa Avenue In summary, if we receive a variance we will create a total of 4 off-street parking spaces (2 more than currently exist) and 1 new parking space on 6th St., for a net gain of 3 "new" street parking spaces. APPEAL OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT We request that you change the setback requirement from staff's recommendation to our proposed setbacks in the areas circled on the attached page. As shown on the attached page, we propose an 8 foot setback from 6`h St. that extends 3 feet within 524 West Ocean Front, and staff wants us to extend that setback for 7 additional feet. Staff reasons for the additional setback are to improve view sight lines and to break up the mass of the structure's appearance from 6`h St. We do not believe anyone will have improved views with staffs recommended setback, and we don't believe our home's appearance will be improved by staff's recommended larger cutout on 6th St. Also, a larger cutout on 6`h St. will create a narrower "choke point" within our home's interior where we will be connecting our existing home to the proposed new area, and that will present floor plan challenges that we would like to avoid. Please confirm the Planning Commission's approval of our lot merger application and remove the curb cut elimination and change the setback requirement in accordance with our requests in this letter. Sincerely, Morgan and Sandy Davis 54 Attachment No. CC 6 Correspondence Received 155 150 Joseph DeCarlo 510 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92661 December 2, 2013 Fern Nueno, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Davis Lot Merger Appeal to City Council Project File No. PA 2013-176 Location: 106 6 I St. and 524 W. Oceanfront Activity No. LM 2013-003 Dear Ms. Nueno, V�6r;EiVED ,qy COMMUNITY DEC 0 5 2013 DEVELOPMENT .T kOP NIZwPoo This project was approved by Planning Commission but unreasonable condition was attached which is being appealed to City Council. I have met with Morgan Davis who is our neighbor and he has agreed to the 5' (five foot) set backs on the lot merger which is needed to alleviate a dangerous condition in the narrow alley which turns at 90 degrees at this property. See attached picture. We are opposed to the condition imposed by Planning Commission that makes this project unfeasible. The condition was to block off the current curb cut and use of the two existing garages and additional side -parking space at 524 W. Oceanfront. Mr. Davis would have to put two new garages on the alley where the 90 degree turn occurs which would make this another dangerous condition as it would be hard to see pulling into and out of these proposed garages. From my understanding, this is to free up two free parking spaces on 6 I St. for out-of- towners' parking. I would like to remind the City Council these out-of-towner's cannot vote in city elections but the neighbors being affected by the dangerous alley do vote and we will remember who favored Newport Beach residents and those council members who did not care about their constituents. "Justification of finding" could be a dangerous condition. Sincerely, J pDeCarlo Neighbor on effected alley R � �� y{,� ��' _ y � ���. Attachment No. CC 7 Staff Report from November 21, 2013 s1 00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 21, 2013 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination - PA2013-176 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front • Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 • Staff Approval No. SA2013-011 for an Alternative Setback Determination APPLICANT: Morgan Davis PLANNER: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner (949) 644-3227, fnueno@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A lot merger application and a request to waive the parcel map requirement for two properties, under common ownership, located on Balboa Peninsula. The merger would combine the two parcels into one lot for a single -unit residential development. The applicant also requests an Alternative Setback Determination, which is intended in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the standard setbacks are not consistent with other lots in the vicinity. The Alternative Setback Determination would establish all setbacks generally consistent with adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013-011 (Attachment No. PC 1). 01 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 2 VICINITY MAP s„ II N I vEE NA � Subject Properties ;o �CEANFRON I'i • GENERAL PLAN II ZONING H4IHpA HIVp +N Rs.p lJCF4N FppN+W � N N�FAILEy�y RAI H04 HIVE ,y Ry T _` aBAN,,,,, y LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING F CURRENT USE ON-SITE Single -Unit Residential Detached RS -D Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Single -unit dwellings NORTH Two Unit Residential (RT) and Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V) Two -Unit Residential (R-2) and Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V) Duplexes and mixed-use structures SOUTH Parks and Recreation PR Parks and Recreation PR Beach EAST Single -Unit Residential Detached RS -D Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Single -unit dwellings WEST Single -Unit Residential Detached RS -D Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Single -unit dwellings 02 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 3 Project Settinq The subject properties are located on the Balboa Peninsula on West Ocean Front and 6th Street. Each lot is developed with a single -unit residential dwelling. The 106 6th Street lot is 2,100 square feet in area (30' X 70') and the 524 West Ocean Front lot is 3,150 square feet in area (35' X 90'). The typical lots in the area are 30 feet in width and 70 feet in depth; however, several lots in the area are wider than 30 feet. The subject properties are relatively flat with an average slope of less than 20 percent. Project Description The Lot Merger application would result in one 5,250 -square -foot lot for single -unit residential development. The 106 6th Street lot is developed with a single -unit dwelling with vehicular access from the alley. The 524 West Ocean Front lot is developed with a single -unit dwelling with two one -car garages accessed from 6th Street. One unit would be demolished as part of the Lot Merger project. Plans for redeveloping the site have not been submitted and are not required to consider the subject application. The applicant has indicated an intent to demolish the house located at 106 6th Street, to construct a garage off of the alley, and to connect the garage to the existing house located at 524 West Ocean Front. The applicant requests the Alternative Setback Determination to establish setbacks other than the default setbacks that would be required for the merged lot. Background The applicant originally requested the Lot Merger, which was scheduled for review by the Zoning Administrator on October 24, 2013. However, prior to the Zoning Administrator Hearing, the applicant amended the application to request an Alternative Setback Determination, which is typically reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator forwarded the Lot Merger application to be reviewed concurrently with the requested alternative setbacks by the Planning Commission. The staff report is provided as Attachment No. PC 3 and the correspondence received for that hearing is Attachment No. PC 4. On September 10, 2013, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2013-17, amending Title 19 (Subdivsions) to revise the required findings for Lot Mergers. The ordinance became effective on October 24th, and the application has been evaluated based upon these new findings. X03 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 4 DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Code The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject properties for Single - Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) uses. The Coastal Land Use Plan also designates the subject properties as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -C), which provides for single -unit residential development. The subject properties are located within the Single - Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District, which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a detached single-family residential dwelling units located on a single lot. The proposed project is consistent with these designations, as the merged lot will retain the designations, and one unit will be demolished. Consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.16.3 (Property Access) and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.9.3-10, future redevelopment of the property will provide vehicular access from the alley and the curb cut on 6th Street will be closed, as required by Condition of Approval No. 5 in the draft Resolution. Lot Merger Redevelopment of the site would be required to be consistent with the Zoning Code standards, including, floor area, setback requirements, and 3 -car garage parking for a house with over 4,000 square feet of floor area. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot width and area requirements. Due to the shape and corner location, the proposed lot would not meet the lot width requirement of 60 feet or the minimum lot size for newly created lots of 6,000 square feet in area. However, the resulting merged lot would be more consistent with these minimum requirements. The typical lots in the area are not consistent with the minimum width and area requirements of the Zoning Code because of how the area was originally subdivided and developed; however, lots that have been merged and reoriented in the past are generally consistent with current width and area requirements, which are shown in Table 2. The merged lot will retain the R-1 zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area, and one of the existing dwelling units will be demolished prior to recordation of the Lot Merger. This will result in reduced density and a small decrease in traffic and parking demand. Furthermore, future redevelopment of the property will require closure of an existing driveway approach on 6th Street and vehicular access from the alley, resulting in additional on -street parking. The merged lot will not be deprived of legal access as the lot will abut a street, an alley, and the beach front walk. No adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger, as vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain via public alleys. 04 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 5 The new finding for consideration is Finding E in the draft Resolution: E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this finding, the review authority may consider the following: a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate from the pattern of development of adjacent and/or adjoining lots in a manner that would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties. b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or general orientation of adjacent and/or adjoining lots. c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the zoning district The combined lot would not be rectangular in shape as is typical for the area. However, the application of the alternative setbacks would ensure the development is consistent with the neighborhood. The house that could be constructed on the merged lot would be longer than most houses in the area as viewed from 6th Street, but the project viewed from the alley and West Ocean Front would remain unchanged. Staff believes that from the 6th Street vantage point, there will not be a significant deviation from the existing lot configuration with the articulation that would be provided by the suggested setbacks along the street. Several lots in the area have been reoriented to front on West Ocean Front and West Balboa Boulevard, and 6th Street has both front and sides of residential structures facing the street. The merged lot will not meet the 60 -foot lot width standard of the R-1 zone despite the added width. Additionally, the merged lot will be 5,250 square feet in area and closer to conformity with the minimum 6,000 -square -foot lot area standard. While the lots in the immediate vicinity are typically 70 or 90 feet deep, a 120 -foot deep lot is not a significant deviation to the pattern of development to the detriment of surrounding properties. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 19.08.030, the Planning Commission may waive the requirements for a parcel map for mergers resulting in the net elimination of no more than three parcels. In this case, the Lot Merger would result in one parcel being eliminated and staff recommends the waiver of the parcel map. The Lot Merger exhibit is provided as Attachment No. PC 4. Alternative Setback Determination Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C) states that in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Community Development Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with 05 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 6 surrounding properties. The applicant requests the Alternative Setback Determination to establish setbacks should the Lot Merger be approved. To ensure surrounding property owners are notified, the staff referred the request to the Planning Commission for consideration and final action. To determine the appropriate setback requirements, staff considered the proximity of buildings, the resulting floor area ratio, other relevant development standards, and maneuvering within the alley. The proposed setback areas were compared with staff's recommendation for the subject lot, standard setbacks for typical lots in the area, and standard setbacks for wider than typical lots in the area. Setback Compatibility The default setbacks for the merged lot are depicted below and in Attachment No. PC 5. The front setback along West Ocean Front and 6th Street are designated as 8 feet by the Setback Map (Attachment No. PC 6). The rear and side setback requirements are established pursuant to Zoning Code Section 20.18.030. The required rear setback is 10 feet for the northernmost property line adjacent to 523 Balboa Blvd. The 6th Street side setback is 3 feet, the interior side setbacks are 3 feet, and the side setback to the alley would be 3 feet. As depicted below and in Attachment No. PC 5, the applicant proposes to maintain the 8 -foot front setbacks along West Ocean Front and 6th Street established on the Setback Map, and to continue the 8 -foot setback southerly within the West Ocean Front lot for an additional 3 feet. The applicant requests a 3 -foot rear setback along the northernmost property line. The applicant requests a 5 -foot side setback to the alley, 3 -foot street side setback, 3 -foot interior side setback on the property line adjacent to the rear of the 522 West Ocean Front lot, and a 3.5 -foot interior side setback from the eastern property line shared with 522 West Ocean Front. The applicant and staff are in agreement with the front, alley, street -side, and the 3 -foot interior side setback on the property line adjacent to the rear of the 522 West Ocean Front lot. Staff agrees with the 3 -foot rear setback request because the rear setback area abuts the side setback of the adjacent lot and there would be a typical 6 -foot separation between buildings on abutting lots, which is not detrimental to either lot. One purpose for the 10 -foot rear yard setback is to provide usable outdoor open space, but in this case, the beach -facing front yard setback provides outdoor open space. Furthermore, the default 10 -foot rear setback would not allow enough width at the alley to construct a typical 2 -car garage. Staff's recommendation (shown below and in Attachment No. PC 5) differs from the applicant's request in two areas: the extension of the 8 -foot setback along 6th Street and the interior side setback from the eastern property line shared with 522 West Ocean Front. Staff believes a larger street side setback area will provide additional building articulation and reduce the length of the building mass in one position. It will also Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 7 provide additional open area abutting the street. The difference between 3 and 3.5 feet is not significant and a 3 -foot interior side setback would be consistent with the Zoning Code requirement for a 35 -foot wide lot, and would provide the typical separation between the subject property and 522 West Ocean Front. A 3 -foot setback will not preclude a house from being setback greater than 3 feet. Staff believes that the recommended setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood, provide adequate setback area for light and air, would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties, and would meet the intent of the Zoning Code setback area requirements. Default Setbacks Proposed Setbacks Development Standard Comparison Staff Recommendation Setback areas determine the buildable area of the lot, which affects other development standards. Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) establishes third floor area limitations of 15 percent of the buildable area (for lots wider than 30 feet) and an open volume requirement of 15 percent of the buildable area. The third floor is also required to step back an additional 15 feet from the front and rear setback lines and 2 feet from the side setback lines (for lots 30 feet or wider). Due to the L -shape of the merged lot, staff recommends that the 15 -foot third floor step backs be measured from the front setback line along West Ocean Front and the rear setback line. The 2 -foot side step backs would be required from 6th Street side and interior side setbacks. Table 1 provides a comparison of the buildable area, third floor area, and open volume requirement for the subject property with default setbacks, as proposed by the applicant, and staffs recommendation, and for a typical lot and wider lot in the area. Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 8 Table 1 Development Standard Comparison The buildable area of a lot is the lot area excluding the required setback areas. Floor Area Comparison Table 2 provides a comparison of the lot area, buildable area, floor area limit (FAL), floor area ratio (FAR), and setback area as a percentage of the lot area for the applicant's request, staff's recommendation, typical lots in the area, and wider lots in the area. The FAR is the floor area to lot area ratio and is a method to compare the maximum square footage allowed on a site based on the lot size. Table 2 Floor Area and Setback Comparison Buildable area (SF)' Third Floor Area SF Open Volume SF Merged Lot - Default 3,453 518 518 Applicant Proposed 3,760.5 555 555 Staff Recommendation 3,768 565 656 Typical - 30'X 70' 1,368 205 205 Wider lot - 45'X 70' 2,109 316 316 The buildable area of a lot is the lot area excluding the required setback areas. Floor Area Comparison Table 2 provides a comparison of the lot area, buildable area, floor area limit (FAL), floor area ratio (FAR), and setback area as a percentage of the lot area for the applicant's request, staff's recommendation, typical lots in the area, and wider lots in the area. The FAR is the floor area to lot area ratio and is a method to compare the maximum square footage allowed on a site based on the lot size. Table 2 Floor Area and Setback Comparison ' The FAL (maximum square footage) for R-1 properties on the Balboa Peninsula is two (2) times the buildable area of the lot. WN Lot Area (SF) Buildable Area (SF) FAL (SF)' FAR Setback as % of Lot Subject Lot Merged - Default Setbacks 5,250 3,453 6,906 1.32 34.23 Applicant Proposed 5,250 3,760.5 7,521 1.43 28.37 Staff Recommendation 5,250 3,768 1 7,536 1.44 1 28.23 Typical Lot in Area 30'X 70' 2,100 1,368 2,736 1.30 34.86 Nearby Lots 522 W. Ocean Front - 35'X 90' 3,150 2,233 4,466 1.42 29.11 514 W. Ocean Front - 45'X 70' 3,150 2,109 4,218 1.34 33.05 620 W. Ocean Front - 60'X 70' 4,200 3,068 6,136 1.46 26.95 628 W. Ocean Front - 70'X 90' 6,300 4,884 9,768 1.55 22.48 706 W. Ocean Front - 60'X 70' 4,200 2,964 5,928 1.41 29.43 ' The FAL (maximum square footage) for R-1 properties on the Balboa Peninsula is two (2) times the buildable area of the lot. WN Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 9 The applicant's proposed setbacks provide an FAR of 1.43 and FAL of 7,521 square feet, which are higher than the typical lots in the area, but comparable to nearby larger lots. The maximum square footage that could be built on the subject lot would increase by approximately 615 square feet with the proposed alternative setbacks as compared with the default setbacks. As proposed, the setback area as a percentage of the lot would be less than the typical lots in the area, but similar to the larger lots in the vicinity. The staff recommended setbacks provide an FAR of 1.44 and FAL of 7,536 square feet, which are higher than the typical lots in the area, but comparable to nearby larger lots. The staff recommendation includes a setback area as a percentage of the lot that would be less than the typical lots in the area, but similar to the nearby larger lots. Summary The applicant requests the Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination resulting in an L-shaped lot that is larger than typical lots in the area, but not necessarily out of character with the neighborhood. Despite the fact that the house that could be built after the merger would be larger and longer than other homes on the area, staff believes the project can be found compatible considering appropriate setbacks of the building bulk, FAR of larger nearby lots, reduced density in the area, alley access for the property, and additional on -street parking. Alternatives The Planning Commission could deny the Lot Merger application if any of the required findings cannot be made. Should the Lot Merger application be denied, the Alternative Setback Determination would not be applicable and would necessitate denial as well. In conjunction with approval of the Lot Merger application, the Planning Commission could deny or modify the Alternative Setback Determination. If the request for Alternative Setbacks is denied, the subject property would retain the default setbacks. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), which exempts which exempts minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The proposed project would merge the lots and alter the required setbacks, but will not result in a physical change to the existing lot, or any changes in land use or density. Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) November 21, 2013 Page 10 Public Notice Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of- way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: FW N eno, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution — Approve PC 2 Draft Resolution — Deny PC 3 Zoning Administrator Staff Report from October 24, 2013 PC 4 Correspondence Received PC 5 Lot Merger PC 6 Setback Comparison PC 7 Setback Map S -2E (excerpt) , Deputy Director 70 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution — Approve 72 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2013-003 AND STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2013-011 FOR A LOT MERGER AND ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION LOCATED AT 106 6T" STREET AND 524 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2013-176) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Morgan Davis, with respect to property located at 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 15, Block 10, East Newport Tract and Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment LLA2001-008 requesting approval of a Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. 2. The applicant proposes to merge the two lots and requests a waiver of the parcel map requirement. The applicant also requests an Alternative Setback Determination to establish all required setbacks for the merged lot. 3. The subject properties are designated as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) in the General Plan Land Use Element and are located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone and the Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -C). 5. Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C) states that in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Community Development Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. In this case, so that surrounding property owners would be notified of the application, the Community Development Director referred the request to the Planning Commission for consideration and final action. 6. A public hearing was held on October 24, 2013, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, related to the requested Lot Merger only. 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 Zoning Administrator at this meeting. The Zoning Administrator referred the Lot Merger application to the Planning Commission to allow for concurrent review with the Alternative Setback Determination. 72 Planning Commission Resolution No. Pace 2 of 10 7. A public hearing was held on November 21, 2013, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The proposed project would merge the lots and alter the required setbacks, but will not result in a physical change to the existing lot or structure, or any changes in land use or density. 3. 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. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Lot Merger In accordance with Section 19.68.030 and 19.08.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth in regards to the subject lot merger: Finding: A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The lot merger to combine two existing legal lots by removing the interior lot line between the lots will not result in the creation of additional parcels. 08-09-2013 7S Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 10 2. The project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent. 3. Pursuant to Municipal Code requirements, redevelopment of the property will require vehicular access from the alley and closure of an existing curb cut on 6'h Street creating additional on -street parking. 4. The future development on the proposed parcel will be subject to the Zoning Code development standards, including, floor area, setback requirements, and 3 -car garage parking for a house with over 4,000 square feet of floor area. 5. The Alternative Setback Determination will ensure that setback requirements and future development on the merged lot are consistent with surrounding properties and will provide adequate space for vehicle maneuverability in the alley. Finding: B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The two lots to be merged are under common fee ownership. Finding: C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The merged lot will retain the Single -Unit Residential zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area. The R-1 Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a detached single-family residential dwelling units located on a single lot. 2. A minimum of one (1) single -unit dwelling located on the subject lots will be demolished prior to recordation of the Lot Merger, resulting in the merged lot containing one (1) dwelling unit, consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code. 3. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. 08-09-2013 74 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4of10 4. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which applies to a range of single-family residential dwelling units. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Deatched (RSD -C) which provides for density ranges from 10.0-19.9 dwelling units per acre. The land use will remain the same and the merger is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. 5. Future redevelopment of the property will provide vehicular access from the alley, consistent with General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. 6. The subject property is not located within a Specific Plan area. Finding: D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The lots as merged will not be deprived of legal access as the merged lot will abut a street, an alley, and a beach front walk. 2. No adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. The public alleys were developed to provide vehicular access for the properties located in the area, and vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain via existing public alleys. Finding: E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this finding, the review authority may consider the following: a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate from the pattern of development of adjacent and/or adjoining lots in a manner that would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties. b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or general orientation of adjacent and/or adjoining lots. c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The house that could be constructed on the merged lot would be longer than most houses in the area as viewed from 6th Street, but the project views from the alley and West Ocean Front would remain unchanged and would be typical for the area. The overall length of what could be developed from the vantage point of 6th Street is 08-09-2013 75 Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 5 of 10 mitigated by a larger setback by providing enhanced building articulation and open space. 2. Several lots in the area have been reoriented to front on West Ocean Front and West Balboa Boulevard, and 6th Street has both front and sides of residential lots and structures facing the street; therefore, the merger would not result in development that is inconsistent with the neighborhood. 3. The standard lot size of lots in the area is 30 feet by 70 feet (2,100 square feet), with nearby lots ranging from 1,830 to 6,289 square feet in area. The lots as merged will result in a 5,250 -square -foot parcel that is larger than the typical lot in the area, but smaller than the minimum 6,000 -square -foot lot size requirement of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the lots as merged will not create an excessively large lot that would be incompatible with the surrounding development. 4. While the lots in the immediate vicinity are typically 70 or 90 feet deep, a 120 -foot deep lot is not a significant deviation to the pattern of development to the unreasonable detriment of surrounding properties. 5. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots provide less than the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger of the lots would create one 5,250 -square -foot parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Code. Finding: F. The proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Future improvements on the site will be required to comply with the development standards of the Municipal Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed lot merger combines the properties into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than one lot. 3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot line, and allow the property to be used as a single site. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. The subject property is not subject to a Specific Plan. 08-09-2013 70 Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 6 of 10 Alternative Setback Determination In accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C), the following findings are set forth in regards to the subject Alternative Setback Determination: The Municipal Code does not set forth any required findings for the approval of Alternative Setback Determinations. The application was reviewed for compatibility with the neighborhood based on setback area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other development standards, to ensure that alternative setbacks do not result in development that would be incompatible with and not detrimental to the neighborhood. 2. The application of the standard Single -Unit Residential (R-1) setbacks will result in a buildable area inconsistent with other lots in the vicinity and in the R-1 Zoning District by establishing a 10 -foot rear setback adjacent to a side setback and a 3 -foot side setback along a narrow alley when typically a rear yard setback of 5 feet would be required. 3. The alternative setback determination will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley will improve vehicular maneuverability in the alley and be consistent with how typical alley setbacks are regulated. The 3 -foot interior side setback and 8 -foot front setback requirements are consistent with surrounding properties. The 8 -foot street side setback will increase building articulation and open space mitigating the overall length of the building as viewed from 6th Street. The application of the alternative setbacks will allow development of the property with a floor area ratio that is comparable with nearby lots. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013-011, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A and subject to the setbacks set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. The Lot Merger action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 19 Subdivisions, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. The Alternative Setback Determination Staff Approval action shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 08-09-2013 77 Planning Commission Resolution No. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: M Bradley Hillgren, Chairman Kory Kramer, Secretary 08-09-2013 7of10 72 Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 8 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the property owner or the leasing agent. 3. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, one or both dwelling units shall be demolished to ensure that no more than one (1) single -unit dwelling exists on the merged lot. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction to cross the existing interior lot line between the two lots proposed to be merged, recordation of the lot merger documents with the County Recorder shall be required. 5. Prior to the final of any building permit or certificate of occupancy, the curb cut on 6th Street shall be closed. 6. The 5 -foot side setback to the alley shall remain free and clear of any obstructions. There shall be no parking of vehicles within the 5 -foot setback. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 9. Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 10. 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 Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination including, but not limited to, the Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval SA2013- 011. 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 08-09-2013 7J Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 9 of 16 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. 08-09-2013 W WEST BALBOA BLVD. LU LU ti EXHIBIT "B" 70' :................................ ....:_ € 523 Buildable Area: ©` 1,368 sf ........................ ©............. ..................... :106 � o Buildable Area: 3,768 sf .......40 ............. 0 Buildable Area: 2,233 sf 4'© 0 :....................524: :....................522: r 0 35' 35' WEST OCEAN FRONT 524 West Ocean Front and 106 6th Street PA2013-176 Determination of Alternative Setback Area Locations 0 10 20 mommocz= Feet 0 N.. Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution — Deny 22 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING LOT MERGER NO. LM2013-003 AND STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2013-011 FOR A LOT MERGER AND ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION LOCATED AT 106 6T" STREET AND 524 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2013-176) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Morgan Davis, with respect to property located at 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 15, Block 10, East Newport Tract and Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment LLA2001-008 requesting approval of a Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. 2. The applicant proposes to merge the two lots and requests a waiver of the parcel map requirement. The applicant also requests an Alternative Setback Determination to establish all required setbacks for the merged lot. 3. The subject properties are designated as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) in the General Plan Land Use Element and are located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone and the Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -C). 5. Zoning Code Section 20.30.110 (C) states that in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Community Development Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. In this case, so that surrounding property owners would be notified of the application, the Community Development Director referred the request to the Planning Commission for consideration and final action. 6. A public hearing was held on October 24, 2013, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, related to the requested Lot Merger only. 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 Zoning Administrator at this meeting. The Zoning Administrator referred the Lot Merger application to the Planning Commission to allow for concurrent review with the Alternative Setback Determination. W Planning Commission Resolution No. 2 of 3 7. A public hearing was held on November 21, 2013, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Lot Merger The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030 and 19.08.030. In regards to the subject Lot Merger, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1 Alternative Setback Determination The Municipal Code does not set forth any required findings for the approval of Alternative Setback Determinations. The application was reviewed for compatibility with the neighborhood based on setback area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other development standards, to ensure that alternative setbacks do not result in development that would be incompatible with and not detrimental with the neighborhood. In regards to the subject Alternative Setback Determination, the Planning Commission found the application to be detrimental to the neighborhood based upon the following: 1 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013-011. 2. The Lot Merger action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 19 Subdivisions, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 08-09-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3of3 3. The Alternative Setback Determination Staff Approval action shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: 1'� Bradley Hillgren, Chairman BY: Kory Kramer, Secretary 08-09-2013 E:� Attachment No. PC 3 Zoning Administrator Staff Report from October 24, 2013 I'M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 100 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Fax: (949) 644-3229 www.newportbeachca.gov CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT October 24, 2013 Agenda Item No. 6 SUBJECT: Davis Lot Merger - PA2013-176 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 APPLICANT: Morgan Davis PLANNER: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner (949) 644-3227, fnueno@newportbeachca.gov ZONING DISTRICT/GENERAL PLAN • Zone: R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) • General Plan: RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) PROJECT SUMMARY A lot merger application and a request to waive the parcel map requirement for two properties, under common ownership, located on Balboa Peninsula. The merger would combine the two parcels into one lot for single -unit residential development. RECOMMENDATION Forward application to the Planning Commission for review concurrently with an Alternative Setback Determination application. DISCUSSION In conjunction with the Lot Merger application, the applicant requests an Alternative Setback Determination, which is reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Alternative Setback Determination is intended in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with other lots in the vicinity. This will ensure that setback requirements for the merged lot and future development are consistent with surrounding properties. WA Davis Lot Merger Zoning Administrator October 24, 2013 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), which exempts minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of- way and waterways) including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Should the application be forwarded to Planning Commission, notice of the hearing would be provided pursuant to the Brown Act. Prepared by: .AiCP/�'kf F r6 Nueno, Associate Planner JC/fn Attachments: ZA 1 Vicinity Map ZA 2 Project Plans %: Attachment No. ZA 1 Vicinity Map VICINITY MAP Lot Merger No. LM2013-003 PA2013-176 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front Attachment No. ZA 2 Project Plans 9I EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 3 CITY ❑E NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L.A. 2013 - (LEGAL DESCRIPTI❑N) EXISTING PARCELS OPROPOSED PARCELS OWNER AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER MORGAN W. DAVIS AND SANDRA L. 1 048-073-02 PARCEL 1 AVIS, TRUSTEES OF THE DAVIS AMILY TRUST 048-073-29 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1: ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 15 IN BLOCK 10 OF EAST NEWPORT, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. TOGETHER WITH: TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 2001-008 AS PER DOCUMENT RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20020811323 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CA, ® SUR�r��k ®\\\ w dt lka,� o PREPARED BY : ----- ----_N EL'-_------- RON MIEDEMA L.S. 4653 DATE 07-22-2013REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-2013 2 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L,A (MAP) OWNER MORGAN W. DAVIS DAVIS, TRUSTEES FAMILY TRUST EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER AND SANDRA L. 048-073-02 OF THE DAVIS SHEET 2 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 048-073-29 I PARCEL 1 N78°36'00°W 70.00' � 5.00- CD LOT 16 0 N o' 20' 40' 25.00 SCALE 1'=20' — _ _ _ _N78036'00°W 70.00' 35.00' J 1 �L-, 0 0 N PARCEL 1 W I 0 H cu W ev (U W Z I z M I U) Q 2:1 1 Q, _ Vl Qw� � Lo Cl) � 0 0 W > z o m PARG2L -1 m W o J � I � wvW V) w w w J (4jx LLA 2001-008 Q W W W U J Q Z QC:) m < O� � Qa c')' cn z��� w � E3 D �Wca Z W W Z N L7 Q' " J Z 0 O W F W zro� iwwM 35.00' a m wo0cx U J a- W o (U N78036'00'W 70.00 w 2:(u, J (U J J z C7 wo f I o OCEANFRONT U U D Y I a LiJ I N a s J I d a 25.0 I— I — J 1 �L-, EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L,A, (SITE PLAN) OWNER d❑RGAN W, DAVIS AND SANDRA L, )AVIS, TRUSTEES OF THE DAVID -AMILY TRUST I I 25.00 NORTH o' 20' 40' 9.5 1 F SCALE 1'=20' EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER LLI 048-073-02 048-073-29 N78°36'00" SHEET 3 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 70.00' 1 I I PARCEL 1 o o i o 0 Lo7 15 co I 11.30--I ro I a- I U-) 1 STORY f— J I I of RESIDENCE � - -J- 1�( 35.00' r ---T, I--10,00 g I I I IN I LLut LI QI I z� a-� m w w o 0 5.00-� J wQl.71�! �- o I OD 1 L N L PARCEL I Z W JOI—\ 1C7W LA 200'1-008 z o o i L w ch E FWz� I i�w 35.00' � w o � x o O W Io 01 10 W C7J� cj��z �V, �I pH I�' �W v)mJz x IJLd I vv I Nw 3.50 omwuJ ¢0 3.50 � Ifs ¢ I W H IN I LLut LI QI I z� a-� iWQ� 1 0 1 5.00-� J wQl.71�! �- I OD 1 L Z41 W JOI—\ 1C7W / z o o i L w ch 35.00' w o � x o — �/( U J d W " (1J N78°36'00'W 70.00' I I � N z I I W I N OCEANFRONT I I w I ¢ cu O ¢ L 25,00 m Attachment No. PC 4 Correspondence Received 95 Norton Younglove 514 W Ocean Front Newport Beach, Cal 92661 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Davis Lot Merger Project File No. PA2013-176 Location 106 6th street and 524 W Oceanfront Item No. 6a: Additional Materials Received Zoning Administrator, October 24, 2013 Davis Lot Merger ��CENED Qy COMMUNIV OCT 2 4 2013 O p NFLOPMENT P4� �AyOP NEWP()' The alley in back of 106 6th street is very narrow. The fence needs to be set back several feet. Currently it is very difficult to make the turn and the trash truck has to back our of the alley. This alley is the only access for the homes in this block. The other house on 6th street is set back adequately. Thank you for solving a neighborhood problem. Sincerely. Norton Younglove 90 Item No. 6b: Additional Materials Received Zoning Administrator, October 24, 2013 Davis Lot Merger McClellan Harris III 509 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92661 OGelveo 8), COMMUNITY 22 October 2013 OCT 2 4 2013 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department �, DEVELOPMENT r Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive l oa001 P.O. Box 1768 Nin PORI Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Davis Lot Merger - Location: 106 6'11 Street and 524 West Oceanfront Project File No. PA 2013-176 Activity No LM2013-003 This letter is written to express my concerns that the City ensure that this project requires a setback if these two parcels are combined. Specifically, the alley -way access behind 6th Street is significantly impaired due existing structure at the property line. This parcel is the only one that currently has this issue as new construction in this area over the years has required the set back. As currently situated, the lot construction at the property line significantly impairs local resident traffic. The existence of this one lot having construction at the property line (i) impairs adequate traffic access, (ii) requires that the garbage truck must back up twice to collect the refuge on Balboa Boulevard and 6a' street, and (iii) often requires automobile traffic to take two attempts at making the turn due to the tight turning area imposed by the existing lot -line construction at 6th street. This situation does present an unsafe condition that could be ameliorated simply by requiring the set back on the lone 6'I' street property. I would appreciate your mailing me staff report on this issue when available. Sincerely, i McC4�� lellan H i. 97 Joseph DeCarlo 510 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92661 October 16, 2013 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Davis Lot Merger Project File No. PA 2013-176 Location 106 6th St. and 524 W. Oceanfront Activity No. LM2013-003 Item No. 6c: Additional Materials Received Zoning Administrator, October 24, 2013 Davis Lot Merger '*�CEIVED a COMMUNrn PCZ I I ".13 o�. DEVELOPM° r OF NF,• The alley in back of 106 6th Street is very narrow and their fence abuts the alley making it difficult to make the 90 degree turn that goes to Balboa Blvd. Other houses have set backs from alley but this one does not. There should be a set back from the alley if these two parcels are combined. This is a dangerous situation. Also, most cars and emergency vehicles have to back up and straighten out to transverse the turn in the alley. The trash truck cannot make turn and has to back all the way out of alley to the island and then go in off of Balboa Blvd. to pick up trash at 106 6th Street. I will be out of town on October 24, 2013 and would like you to email me staff report prior to hearing. :PM, CCIM, CRE :�—r101W-1 Attachment No. PC 5 Lot Merger 9j OWNER ORGAN W. DAVIS AVIS, TRUSTEES AMILY TRUST EXHIBIT "A" CITY ❑E NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L.A. (LEGAL DESCRIPTI❑N) AND SANDRA L. OF THE DAVIS EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER 048-073-02 048-073-29 SHEET 1 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1: ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 15 IN BLOCK 10 OF EAST NEWPORT, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. TOGETHER WITH: TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 2001-008 AS PER DOCUMENT RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20020811323 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CA, ® SUR�r��k ®\\\ w dt lka,� o PREPARED BY : ----- ----_N EL'-_------- RON MIEDEMA L.S. 4653 DATE 07-22-2013REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-2013 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L,A (MAP) OWNER MORGAN W. DAVIS DAVIS, TRUSTEES FAMILY TRUST EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER AND SANDRA L. 048-073-02 OF THE DAVIS SHEET 2 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 048-073-29 I PARCEL 1 N78°36'00°W 70.00' � 5.00- CD LOT 16 0 N o' 20' 40' 25.00 SCALE 1'=20' — _ _ _ _N78036'00°W 70.00' 35.00' J 1 1U1 0 0 N PARCEL 1 W I 0 H cu W ev (U W Z I z M I U) Q 2:1 1 Q, _ Vl Qw� � Lo Cl) � 0 0 W > z o m PARG2L -1 m W o J � I � wvW V) w w w J (4jx LLA 2001-008 Q W W W U J Q Z QC:) m < O� � Qa c')' cn z��� w � E3 D �Wca Z W W Z N L7 Q' " J Z 0 O W F W zro� iwwM 35.00' a m wo0cx U J a- W o (U N78036'00'W 70.00 w 2:(u, J (U J J z C7 wo f I o OCEANFRONT U U D Y I a LiJ I N a s J I d a 25.0)�L I — — J 1 1U1 EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L,A, (SITE PLAN) OWNER d❑RGAN W, DAVIS AND SANDRA L, )AVIS, TRUSTEES OF THE DAVID -AMILY TRUST I I 25.00 NORTH o' 20' 40' 9.5 1 F SCALE 1'=20' EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER LLI 048-073-02 048-073-29 N78°36'00" SHEET 3 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 70.00' 1 I I PARCEL 1 o o i o 0 Lo7 15 co I 11.30--I ro I a- I U-) 1 STORY f— J I I of RESIDENCE � - -J- 1�( 35.00' r ---T, I--10,00 g I I I IN I LLut LI QI I z� a-� m w w o 0 5.00-� J wQl.71�! �- o I OD 1 L N L PARCEL I Z W JOI—\ 1C7W LA 200'1-008 z o o i L w ch E FWz� I i�w 35.00' � w o � x o O W Io 01 10 W C7J� cj��z �V, �I pH I�' �W v)mJz x IJLd I vv I Nw 3.50 omwuJ ¢0 3.50 � Ifs ¢ I W H IN I LLut LI QI I z� a-� iWQ� 1 0 1 5.00-� J wQl.71�! �- I OD 1 L Z41 W JOI—\ 1C7W / z o o i L w ch 35.00' w o � x o — �/( U J d W " (1J N78°36'00'W 70.00' I I � N z I I W I N OCEANFRONT I I w I ¢ cu O ¢ L 25,00 10: Attachment No. PC 6 Setback Comparison 103 vJ M ,0c 114 ,06 IN U N N O OL I' 0 .. M M '• o .. ,OE ,06 vJ M ,0c 114 ,06 IN U N N O OL I' 0 M .. loc 06 vJ M ,0c 114 ,06 IN U N N O OL I' Attachment No. PC 7 Setback Map S -2E (excerpt) 10.5 1 CINb�SI 3AV- s' �Nb7Sl o r� 00.9 ^ o fipS ,/0S 6pS 90,9 11.9 80,9 £LS DjS SSS �`S «S 9tS 6t lZ 8tS S oZS z w U O 100 \ M 0 1 CINb�SI 3AV- s' �Nb7Sl o r� 00.9 ^ o fipS ,/0S 6pS 90,9 11.9 80,9 £LS DjS SSS �`S «S 9tS 6t lZ 8tS S oZS z w U O 100 Attachment No. CC 8 Curb Cut Exhibit 207 102 GlSlrsc Imus NOT PAxi r '..N'c .... NOTAru r Lmr.ra.rnLw� 6T11 STRGBT EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLAN IA INrn- Iw- 1OJ AI.LLI'—j }�---1 •I V � 1 N� T Ilw •(VITA (tf�hn' o O F%I511\c IIOIAF TA.., o 11 : 4 m VU 0 � 4OIAP IM. /nornrnar o rxoxnrunonrtmu I _ 'S - 1II�11 'I:rv':raR 11'uxu I i ¢!cIR. x{naonrznGl:�'� EXISTING Hous.e M.' �' • I'' ` IV IIFCfIYVCRl4UlD , rLIVI\'G I q I 1 IIID'[ I— —� svn. ac4xrnoxe -.I,� Lmr.ra.rnLw� 6T11 STRGBT EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLAN IA INrn- Iw- 1OJ 110 Attachment No. CC 9 Council Policy L-2 111 112 DRIVEWAY APPROACHES GENERAL Lr2 A. A permit will be required prior to any driveway construction within the street right-of-way. All construction shall conform with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the City of Newport Beach. Brick, textured concrete or flat stone surfacing may be used subject to Public Works Department approval. Such brick, textured concrete or flat stone surfacing may not be used on Bayside Drive. B. The number of driveway openings shall be kept to a minimum so as to preserve on -street parking and to reduce the points of traffic conflict. C. The term "Curb Opening" shall mean the total width of the approach including the slope distances on the curb. The term "Approach Bottom" shall mean the total width of the approach less the slope distances on the curbs. D. Curb openings shall not be constructed closer than 5 feet to the beginning of the curvature of a curb return, fire hydrant, traffic signal/ pedestrian street light, utility pole/anchor/pedestal, trees or vent pipe, unless approved by the Public Works Department. E. The entire curb opening shall be within the prolongation of the property lines except when cross easements provide for a common driveway along the mutual property line. F. No permit shall be issued for driveways on Clubhouse Drive, Glen Drive, Balboa Island or on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval. No curb openings will be permitted on Ocean Boulevard when access is available from an existing alley, street or improved private roadway. G. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the removal of a street tree until such removal has been approved by the General Services Director. H. No permit shall be issued if the driveway encroaches on a crosswalk area. I. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the relocation of any public facility such as fire hydrants utility pole/anchor/pedestal, tree, vault, vent pipes, or street lights until approved by the Public Works Department and a Lr2 deposit has been made to cover the cost of relocation. Property owner shall pay all costs for the relocation of any public facilities. J. No permit shall be issued unless the applicant agrees that at no cost to the City he will remove any driveway opening that is or will be abandoned, and reconstruct curb, gutter and sidewalk (if applicable) to City Standards. K. Where practical, difficulties or hardships may result from the strict application of this policy, minor dimensional variances may be granted with written approval of the Public Works Director. L. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing any person from appealing to the City Council for relief from the applications of this policy. M. No building permit shall be issued on a parcel whose access requires City Council review for an encroachment permit on public property, until said encroachment permit has been issued. RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND RESIDENTIAL USES - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS A. The width of the driveway approach bottom shall not exceed 20 feet except when the driveway is to serve an enclosed three or four car garage, in which case the driveway approach bottom may be increased to 25 feet or 32 feet, respectively. B. One additional curb opening will be permitted to a single parcel subject to the following conditions: 1. The total width for all openings shall not exceed 50% of the total frontage of the parcel. 2. The openings shall be separated by at least 20 feet to retain maximum street parking. 2 114 L-2 C. Street curb openings shall not be pernutted to residential property which abuts an alley. An exception may be made in the case of corner lots where the street on which the curb cut is proposed is not an arterial street and street frontage is available for the full depth of the lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. Access from the street will be permitted where existing structures prevent full alley access, or additional covered off-street parking is being provided. 2. The width of the curb opening shall be limited to one-half of the lot depth. 3. In the case of duplexes, condominiums and condominium conversions, an additional driveway curb cut shall be permitted if the units are separated by a continuous vertical plane, from the ground to the rooftop, with one common wall and/or physically separated by open space. The resultant building product shall have the appearance of two distinct and separate units with a rear unit that has vehicle access from the alley and the front unit with vehicle access from the side street. No overlapping of between the front unit and rear unit floorplans shall be permitted. D. Driveway grades must not exceed the listed applicable maximum slope depending on application. Driveways to lowered or subterranean parking must rise above the flood level or a minimum of six inches above the flow line of the street or alley, whichever is greater, before transitioning to a downward slope. Slope transitions shall be a minimum of five feet in length and the change of slope cannot exceed eleven percent. Driveways providing only parking access - Fifteen- percent maximum slope. Must have access directly from garage into residence. Driveways providing vehicle and pedestrian access - Eight- percent maximum slope. Driveways providing required parking spaces on the driveway itself - Five - percent maximum slope. Minor variations from the listed maximum slopes and slope changes may be granted by the Traffic Engineer when unusual site conditions are encountered. 3 115 L-2 PRIVATE STREETS - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS A. A grading permit will be required prior to the construction of any driveway apron, sidewalk, curb, gutter or wall within the private street rights-of-way. The design parameters shall be in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Design Criteria and Standards for Public Works Construction. Also, the Public Works Department shall perform a brief review of plans prior to permit issuance. B. A Public Works encroachment permit will be required if improvements are to be constructed within 5 feet of a fire hydrant, street light or other public utility system appurtenance (i.e., valve boxes or manholes). C. A Public Works encroachment permit will be required when connecting to or relocating public utilities. COMMERCIAL USES A. The width of the driveway approach bottom shall not exceed 35 feet. B. The total width of all driveways shall not exceed 50% of the frontage of the parcel. C. Commercial driveway approaches may use a curb return design with a maximum curb radius of 25 feet and a driveway approach bottom of greater than 35 feet if the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The driveway serves as an entrance to a parking area or structure for 200 or more vehicles. 2. The number of driveways serving the parcel are at a minimum. D. The curb return commercial driveway approach may incorporate a divided exit and entrance if the separation structure (median island) is continued on-site in such a manner as to provide proper traffic design. 11 110 L-2 CLOSURE OF ABANDONED DRIVEWAY APPROACHES BY CITY The City may close abandoned driveway approaches at high priority locations where two or more of the following criteria may exist: A. The abandoned driveway approach is adjacent to a parcel of property where redevelopment and possible subsequent closure of the approach is not believed imminent; B. The driveway approach is at a location where there is a shortage of available on -street parking; C. The removal of the driveway approach is needed for safe pedestrian and/or bicycle passage; D. The closure of the abandoned driveway approach benefits not so much to the property owner as pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. When in the opinion of the General Services Department and/or the Public Works Department, a curb cut or abandoned driveway approach should be closed, and the adjoining property owner protests the closing, the protester shall be notified that he will have two weeks to appeal the staff decision to the City Council. That appeal must be in writing and may be filed through the mail. If an appeal is not made, the City shall proceed with the closure. If an appeal is made, a hearing shall be held by the City Council, and the decision of the Council shall be final. Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving adjoining property owners from the responsibility for closure of abandoned curb cuts as a condition of permit approval for new construction or for obtaining a curb cut permit for an alternative driveway location on the same parcel. Adopted -January 24, 1%6 Amended - February 26,1968 Amended - JuIy 24,1972 Amended - November 14,1977 Amended - October 25,1982 Amended - JuIy 13,1987 Amended - November 27,1989 Amended - December 14,1992 Reaffirmed - January 24,1994 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - May 8, 2001 Amended - October 10, 2006 5 117 112 Attachment No. CC 10 Lot Merger Exhibit 11j 120 OWNER ORGAN W. DAVIS AVIS, TRUSTEES AMILY TRUST EXHIBIT "A" CITY ❑E NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L.A. (LEGAL DESCRIPTI❑N) AND SANDRA L. OF THE DAVIS EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER 048-073-02 048-073-29 SHEET 1 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1: ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 15 IN BLOCK 10 OF EAST NEWPORT, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. TOGETHER WITH: TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 2001-008 AS PER DOCUMENT RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20020811323 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CA, ® SUR�r��k ®\\\ w dt lka,� o PREPARED BY : ----- ----_N EL'-_------- RON MIEDEMA L.S. 4653 DATE 07-22-2013REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-2013 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L,A (MAP) OWNER MORGAN W. DAVIS DAVIS, TRUSTEES FAMILY TRUST EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER AND SANDRA L. 048-073-02 OF THE DAVIS SHEET 2 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 048-073-29 I PARCEL 1 N78°36'00°W 70.00' � 5.00- CD LOT 16 0 N o' 20' 40' 25.00 SCALE 1'=20' — _ _ _ _N78036'00°W 70.00' 35.00' J 1 1o1o� 0 0 N PARCEL 1 W I 0 H cu W ev (U W Z I z M I U) Q 2:1 1 Q, _ Vl Qw� � Lo Cl) � 0 0 W > z o m PARG2L -1 m W o J � I � wvW V) w w w J (4jx LLA 2001-008 Q W W W U J Q Z QC:) m < O� � Qa c')' cn z��� w � E3 D �Wca Z W W Z N L7 Q' " J Z 0 O W F W zro� iwwM 35.00' a m wo0cx U J a- W o (U N78036'00'W 70.00 w 2:(u, J (U J J z C7 wo f I o OCEANFRONT U U D Y I a LiJ I N a s J I d a 25.0 I— I — J 1 1o1o� EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L,A, (SITE PLAN) OWNER d❑RGAN W, DAVIS AND SANDRA L, )AVIS, TRUSTEES OF THE DAVID -AMILY TRUST I I 25.00 NORTH o' 20' 40' 9.5 1 F SCALE 1'=20' EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER LLI 048-073-02 048-073-29 N78°36'00" SHEET 3 OF 3 2013 - PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 70.00' 1 I I PARCEL 1 o o i o 0 Lo7 15 co I 11.30--I ro I a- I U-) 1 STORY f— J I I of RESIDENCE � - -J- 1�( 35.00' r ---T, I--10,00 g I I I IN I LLut LI QI I z� a-� m w 5.00-� J wQl.71�! �- o I OD 1 L w o 0 N L PARCEL I Z W JOI—\ 1C7W LA 200'1-008 z o o i L w ch E FWz� I i�w 35.00' � w o � x o O W Io 01 10 W C7J� cj��z �V, �I pH I�' �W v)mJz x IJLd I vv I Nw 3.50 omwuJ ¢0 3.50 � Ifs ¢ I W H IN I LLut LI QI I z� a-� iWQ� 1 0 1 5.00-� J wQl.71�! �- I OD 1 L Z41 W JOI—\ 1C7W / z o o i L w ch 35.00' w o � x o — �/( U J d W " (1J N78°36'00'W 70.00' I I � N z I I W I N OCEANFRONT I I w I ¢ cu O ¢ L 25,00 1:�3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC14 APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNI G'COMMIS ION Application No. PA2 011- 0 5 6 Ocean View Medical Investors �~ Name of Appellant , LLC or person filing: (John Bra7) Phone: 949. 721. 8600 Address: 2601 Main Street, Suite 960, Irvine, CA 92614 Date of Planning Commission decision: April 18th 20 13 Regarding application of: Conditional Use Permit No. UP2 011- 011 for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) A Conditional Use Permit application for off-site parking for a medical office building. Off-site parking at 445 Old Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA. Reasons for Appeal: off-site parking enables the project to have parking per existing code. In addition, from a planning standpoint, a medical building is much more compatible with the immediate area. X Date `i _O Sign re of Appellant 64� CITY CLERK FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received:( V 20 t3 cc: Appellant Planning (furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.64.030 Appeal Fee: $4,187.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2011-108 adopted on 11-22-11. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700-5000) Advanced Listing Services Inc Ownership Listings & Radius Maps U P.O. Box 2593 •Dana Point, CA • 92624 J Office: 1949) 36 1-392 1 -Fax: (949 361-3923 www.Advancedlisting.com I, Denise Kaspar, hereby certify that the attached list contains the names, addresses and assessor's parcel numbers of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Orange within the area described by the required 300 foot radius, excluding abutting rights -of -ways and waterways measured from the exterior boundaries of the property legally described as: April 23, 2013 Subject: APN: 425-271-12 Subject Address: 441 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 I, i Denise Kas ar i Advanced Listing Services Inc Ownership Listings & Radius Maps v P.O. Box 2593 • Dana Point, CA • 92624 J Office: (949) 36i-3921 -Fax: (949) 361-3923 www.Advancedlisting.com Subject APN: 42,-271-12 Address: 441 OLD NEWPORT BLVD 300' Radius NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 a(Y Zl hlO aJ .\moo , •6 ,6 o 9 \�7 79 (p V V9 `4 O NEWPORT BLVD 133N1S '6N6'8D' ,OZ - �Z_ -� Wiz- is ` --�,�� - e� ;a � - je�.•� - s� -n�6� --.; 03 o 01 1s� y' d" if i �1ya ti� Yf s m iOy •ytd. i q ^a j£i-9 s x I G lJ AO f ! f ft r 1 If'r I f NORTH NEWPORT BLVD dVd 'ON f a ; l! 6 660-960-5£-GF6 w d F`� f li-9ST JO SE _ 9E 1a 1U d QI � ft •: FO! -201' h5:'!f6 �pG Cj 0 4l OYBf'o LL '- O O - O sr -116 Sf Iddb K d •W'd .a �� � F� .�-�o � of E � �a� s• gy o t ZZ �ilY tt i b' d .57` a 11-9 �o a4� ,�• Fy ji"d ,,,�1C✓ OYSAv St- IS- 09gt rrd ,- ,ri bZ zoo ioo 1 �riro OZ rc� V ¢ O � Y D! •e' Ff ie /1d I'Yd SZ 7fil• O O1 ES£ -[F6 SFjr-dLf6 ca'y rcco - 5.0" W IM I w tient along Ilne to I Use AveryO Template 51600/816OTM Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm i ® AVERY® 6240TM i 1 #5532 4/23/2013 300' OWNERSHIP LISTING (excluding abutting streets) PREPARED FOR: 425-271-12 OCEAN VIEW MEDICAL 441 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-081-03 049-081-19 ROBERT A LAFONT 6747 E WATERTON AVE ORANGE CA 92867 049-081-06 ROBERT M BRENNAN 424 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-261-04 AVALON AT NEWPORT 23 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 190 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 425-261-11 NEELIMA D KABRE 8428 DAWN LN DARIEN IL 60561 425-261-14 425-261-15 TEED LLC 932 SANDCASTLE DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 425-261-19 SMV NEWPORT BEACH 45 BROADWAY 25 NEW YORK NY 10006 425-271-06 461 OLD NEWPORT DANGLE LLC 461 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-271-12 OCEAN VIEW MEDICAL 2601 MAIN ST 560 IRVINE CA 92614 049-081-04 THOMAS R ADAMS 416 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-081-07 DARRELL HEINRICH 428 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-261-09 JEAN-JACQUES BOUCHE PO BOX 1599 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92652 425-261-12 JOHN E TROMMALD 8055 E ROSINA ST LONG BEACH CA 90808 425-261-16 LEVENTHAL 4126 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-261-20 NEWPORT BEACH PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1388 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 425-271-07 425-271-08 OLD NEWPORT DEVELOPMENT LLC 415 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-271-13 NEWPORT BEACH CITY EMPLOY 425 OLD NEWPORT BLVDA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-081-05 BRADSTREET SMITH PO BOX 5582 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662 425-181-01 NEWPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER LLC PO BOX 6100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 425-261-10 CONSTANCE MCBRIEN 1812 ANTIGUA CIR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 425-261-13 AVALON AT NEWPORT 23 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 190 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 425-261-17 HILARIA PROPERTIES LLC 1412 E OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 425-271-05 R E HALL PO BOX 2450 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 425-271-09 447 OLD NEWPORT LLC 447 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-271-14 MICHAEL D FRANKLIN PO BOX 673 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 atiquettes faciles a peter i Se®de Repliez 6 la hachure afin de ; www.averycom11 Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®/8160"" chargement r6v61er le rebord Pop-upmc j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY j, easy rgeiw Laoeis i • ® Bend along line to i i ® TM 1 Feed Pa TM 9 Al/E1�lf®6240TM Use AveryTemplate 5160 /8160 j per expose Pop-up Edge j UN A 425-271-15 RDB LLC 415 OLD NEWPORT BLVD200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-06 THOMAS C & KAREN HERSH 3221 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-09 JANET MOORE 69 ASILOMAR RD LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 425-283-14 PAUL & CRYSTAL CHU 423 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-19 DON M STEWART 428 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-22 D DOOLEY 2057 E OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 425-283-26 MINER PROPERTIES 365 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 937-35-014 KATHLEEN VAUGHAN 427 WESTMINSTER AVE 2 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 Venture RE Group 2601 Main Street, Suite 960 Irvine, CA 92614 425-271-16 425-271-17 ORANGE COAST ASSN OF REALTORS SID SOFFER 401 N NEWPORT BLVD 6450 SPRING MOUNTAIN RD 14 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 LAS VEGAS NV 89146 425-283-07 GEORGE & JENNIFER LEEPER 3215 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-10 JANET MOORE 3201 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-15 JOSEPH WINKELMANN 424 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-20 DONALD ABRAHM 1525 SUPERIOR AVE 104 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-23 SHOHET ENTRPRS LLC 446 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-27 THOMAS V STANSBURY 466 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 937-35-015 W LACHENMYER 431 WESTMINSTER AVE 3 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-08 WALTER & LYDIA CHEN 17612 EMBER DR ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748 425-283-11 BACK BAY REAL ESTATE 140 NEWPORT CENTER DR 100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 425-283-16 425-283-17 425-283-18 LE BIARRITZ RESTAURANT INC 414 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-21 ROBERT E WILLIAMS 438 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425-283-24 425-283-25 ALLEN & KATHRYN DRUCKER PO BOX 15005 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 937-35-013 JAMES A & KIERSTEN OWEN 427 WESTMINSTER AVE A NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 937-35-016 PATRICIA L COSTELLO 431 WESTMINSTER AVE 4 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 Etiquettes faciles a paler ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averycom ; Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 51600/8160M` ' Sens de Mc a 9 chargement reveler le rebord Pop-up j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY j, EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL SITE 2 EXISTING VACANT 0 BUILDING (N.I.C.) uD Er. TOE NNW416 1 DID V-# a FAtSic FOR THIS MILK B === m MMM A/ 0113101E y1i E7asf. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS */- is -le FOS Tam HIM E2111110 m el�llw , CCENSIX MIND R190m EEEcnwa aEma i n dF eaut PWIRD WAR OOMDTOJALAYIOII i sDFPSW PER CITY SWIM 7YP 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/B' = 1' - D' t E �4 pyo, '4 g IRFG MDMAIf RLY 9 4443 BECK LLI MARTIN �ZZ MM scut ArAMEMM A sTaEET sun STI gayy / SRIIDDK INEOM sMIFSD PER an sauEu� m p 1 w� � b I t ///T/ i- --- I ,/ } 11A, ANT STORAGE FA_�U £IUkLCIEXJSTmr �G LL_ w fA01C7 NOR[@ Ml C OLD NNIOR ■YM AND NO N. OLD NW W1 DIMNMIIORr FML CA 22MSIE 1 - 441 N OLD 101'Wr INA AltllM IMRIIEm DL' RIR 731-SScO A I425 -M-12 $R 2 - 447 C aIo NFRPURI CYO. ammob NICHED Sam LLo "I-MSDIL Was AP / 4215-171-17 _ •4 : T': "• : hllEC ..'1!� 'Y'�F � r{��:iT`� n — — — MTM — I "i. l Y'. _. f,v xiv�l5et77i..:':4•Y: p'.ti:%n1�T�.; :. Xr:i• r , ON MaDmW 11PD V••R 20e1RY OFAR SDIAt DO 2 wil o I MM A C M MWFUM FOR FANMW mum MRMN IRD sualcm "NE AD ma •s b r I tiY� � MDiPORf aWD BETE PLAN err --e SWUMFW=43 MY 'MLO' FINIPM PMMW 14 ►NOMD FOR E UM njetE EWWRD W WR AND Tom FIOIDiD 67 ET TIRE Al MaEa OMM 1 SDMDARO ACCONNINE AND Y 1RN ACMMU MS '' : � I DMrro aameaw ••.. 1Fr�y It = TNWauso DM[MADIW 1C O� IIIA j;:h• N1JF`AIf EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING ME WS. FS ' .... 24.-0. P.'•f =Mau loom= �`:t oma am manaM 1 . '�� rr. ::,. I � .. TRMrwTDameeweW 1P M3. FACf,. !,.tied Fall sm I b. EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL SITE 2 EXISTING VACANT 0 BUILDING (N.I.C.) uD Er. TOE NNW416 1 DID V-# a FAtSic FOR THIS MILK B === m MMM A/ 0113101E y1i E7asf. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS */- is -le FOS Tam HIM E2111110 m el�llw , CCENSIX MIND R190m EEEcnwa aEma i n dF eaut PWIRD WAR OOMDTOJALAYIOII i sDFPSW PER CITY SWIM 7YP 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/B' = 1' - D' t E �4 pyo, '4 g IRFG MDMAIf RLY 9 4443 \\\\ �> LdLd m Be aP YTu / I Z _j 0 e BECK LLI MARTIN �ZZ ArAMEMM A sTaEET sun STI gayy / SRIIDDK 16' 16'-w a I LANDSCAPE ///T/ IJ ,/ U ... FA_�U LL_ w \\\\ �> LdLd m Be aP YTu / I Z _j 0 e LLI �ZZ 'q* ALCEM11L PAEMW SRIIDDK fA01C7 NOR[@ Ml C OLD NNIOR ■YM AND NO N. OLD NW W1 DIMNMIIORr FML CA 22MSIE 1 - 441 N OLD 101'Wr INA AltllM IMRIIEm DL' RIR 731-SScO A I425 -M-12 $R 2 - 447 C aIo NFRPURI CYO. ammob NICHED Sam LLo AP / 4215-171-17 _ IN DPD COO[ 2010 P/31MRM MI DiW CDR AND DIY /KIBISM 2010 CC. aC AND CPG MaDmW 11PD V••R 20e1RY OFAR SDIAt DO 2 PRWECr DEsolePnow o MM A C M MWFUM FOR FANMW mum MRMN IRD sualcm "NE AD ma > ARFA DREIKIDOWNM1 MMU DSW�IIFA 11040;1114 N amm MDiPORf aWD BETE PLAN PAOMM INIMIMFD FOR MEDICAL OFFIR PPR 201143 CONZ W WK0 PAl"cm PMDM1Dm SWUMFW=43 MY 'MLO' FINIPM PMMW 14 ►NOMD FOR E UM njetE EWWRD W WR AND Tom FIOIDiD 67 ET TIRE Al MaEa OMM 1 SDMDARO ACCONNINE AND Y 1RN ACMMU MS Eol i 0 aU I ' i i1lAM Allow ACE Z II- / / / W W y I I ly-e I Elm OF SMLL E / / / /Eli W —j 00 Z 0(L I I = :J4i ��;yl:?'C _ .:�'i+zn•'jti3"Y:. µ4%Y:',._✓w ii'fa xivASe:'i"v�.�'. s�4•Y'!'~ti,i...:."�X�•• b 'C:: fti: U � // LL_. I — '* i I oo:rooPomLms m I 001IX OCEN 1V L®01L 1/101106 IiL` NOl YGW 4 # 220■ E-RM�O AF 425 -VO -12 SITS 2 -416 M. OLD NLOPQf EYD. °"'lb Y OINEINQRE 6W. APO 16-M-17 O N F� B 6 7S 6608 COM 7010 MMM 6AOMo CM AD CM A DONO 6 3070 CW. CO AND CPG > D7PQ NNaL m I EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING PROJE1Cf DESORPTION: . 7M WS, FS t I � AREA ESE �bA AIIFA Ilm Y NAC NJDRA6E M7 MgP00f BNI Dom mad m0 0 PASSO R1010E0 1011 IENGV. W= PER IDIlMO fOOE N NPFtS MOONS PRONGED am PLAN AANCW PM FA1M0 14 0QPNOW FOR EMM 6608 IRSIOmm m NNO A0 WWOM TOPE PIWOFD 57 ET Ttrte SCLUM3 i SWMD ACME 40 t MN A7CEME SDALs f110.lOT OEATN710� Al ,Yy MIFR A101m.OD. E "�.Y1 • I ML an sIRFPEIR PER COY mmmxm IV Dr -s s R " Lr r BUILDING 7^����Cxt..ItJi.7C; M=, ®Ow AOS— ODSYO OFPARN VAM AO®fi PA0R0 iRNR'JOD) OCIE IEIm310 i0'OA fACf.� EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL SITE 2 EXISTING VACANT BUILDING (N.I.C.) 1= U. yam�m PEDESTRIAN ACCESS i n Or SPEL PIES IM PA6}!0 Wll@ WIfD,INW.AR011 t- 7s ""1* PER 0" n1wo TP a illi iii �Ii m' -to• ERLsr. 2!O'-11' EffiE. O 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8' = 1' — 0' 'E/- 10--1? ma 11EE Now mm m N" BECK MARTIN 1 —�r11 o�rrE o�a1 s.REE, ,..o ElO3t 0 aU I Z \\\ \% / / / W W y I [L Elm OF SMLL E / / / /Eli W —j 00 Z 0(L LJ m U // U � // LL_. 0 aU POt tm mLd Z \\\ \% / / / W W y I [L Elm OF SMLL E / / / /Eli W —j 00 Z 0(L Z LLJ Z ACl7®E FMM rZffM= N3 PRAOCE AOOR� Ml N. OLD NOIPM OED. AND 4M K OLD NW W 616 SIZE 1 - Kt N OLD NE7/1ME 61D 001IX OCEN 1V L®01L 1/101106 IiL` NOl YGW 4 # 220■ E-RM�O AF 425 -VO -12 SITS 2 -416 M. OLD NLOPQf EYD. °"'lb Y OINEINQRE 6W. APO 16-M-17 O N F� B 6 7S 6608 COM 7010 MMM 6AOMo CM AD CM A DONO 6 3070 CW. CO AND CPG > D7PQ NNaL m a PROJE1Cf DESORPTION: M= AGNEN7 PAMM FOR PAM= ROLPIE ENING SHED SMXTORE. ME -ME AND URP > AREA ESE �bA AIIFA Ilm Y NAC NJDRA6E M7 MgP00f BNI PASSO R1010E0 1011 IENGV. W= PER IDIlMO fOOE N NPFtS MOONS PRONGED am PLAN AANCW PM FA1M0 14 0QPNOW FOR EMM 6608 IRSIOmm m NNO A0 WWOM TOPE PIWOFD 57 ET Ttrte SCLUM3 i SWMD ACME 40 t MN A7CEME SDALs f110.lOT OEATN710� Al 0 EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL SITE 2 EXISTING VACANT BUILDING (N.I.C.) UM sa 40 IL Iw � a FMW IR 1M MU16 8 113=10 m NOME M ®ali A 9'-11' Dmr. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS I. _ � MNRD 9AFTL4 CRL71Ml /Alo. i n a CPU `\ wart ras In FAMim 1AwAa BAlIIOYIL M10� 0""M/la I ""i4ARr 5 DA,4, IT/ 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/11' = 1' – 0" 4/- tr-tr Flan "m mm mw m mmm BECK F N a i/ s�rte �saee. Dmry ilk 16' ter. I trr,srAFE L) mU LL. { y T n`\� /// I O CLU FIN R7 M// a Ld \`\ \> O LTJ W I Z DD OF CALL //// LTJ JO O CL VNNKW MAP Ld 'Z / o // w sou Aeo,zls.i FMO, s>rllacllols / / / / / / O OFMO, SIlFBO FBI arc Somm 17F � b �X r • ra' r-0' K I ; �f4 721 EXISTING VA¢ANT STORAGE m rAa !BUILDING S^> n—moi}.?,OL15:,E> AF f 400-01-12 ! 2-4 kOLD N♦i=OVD. I t i a' -r u'-0' "`� Km 0 r AFI 420-M-17 - �IOaO MtDO, CODA 2D10 G CPC. 1MDreo a1DL A1, olY AMO,IO/IS 2010 ot,, AND rsD A,s ore TIM V-4 7nOG usls ooK W b I � � v i ,',.4 •`Clrt"�,L„ PROJtxF DESCRA06KW Y4:: .:-,":y��J'i 4 , t"'X`;: •<:_fti- i --- MIN — RDInDW A0.11fW IHM MY 7L FA,OO MFF OE]O:f E)DfINO !fD St102.TAE Ii-PAE T AREA BREAKD0WN 0K 1 AG MOD V uDr, ArEt 110, WI Attr2MA2 441 IE11VNf i!O SITE PLAN PAM& A2IURD FOR WOO OFA2 rD1 2"K ®c Y 2rA1a PARKDIO PROVIDED s,lxrs rimsu ADYlPI PADrOtIY FMO, H PAIMM FOR 03MM0 W IO T AND 2MM= 1001E 11101Lm 07 .atm 1 SII,VD ADMMU Al, I IM ACCM7 20 LL0 PFA)JWr WA7WTM Al I y;, : ,aro aDlml,D• t_� tra' a . 'i; ith' ®ACD�L/ICON 2nrvMM v` EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING :star M *46 FS ; r._ 14'-0' •, \:aa 1D�r can a1MMm16DI Ds7o ans }� � - I vAM Ara�r[FAA1a, 1' DaAtt oPa W 1�Dt I .F 1 aC 1IW'A1B0 Da[MIIOa, +P arts rAq.� y� 1=: 1✓y' t � 4^' I ,lr ADClM j• . r''+. �..1:v ^.s;�.:�x FRCMOF >ol fir'' aA010 rAx 1►IAo I I a k ,rtr'.�+r.^ :. J:,^f�;'•,,'te -_�:: h: .. .lu.:; .� •�,,�.1 � 711W EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL SITE 2 EXISTING VACANT BUILDING (N.I.C.) UM sa 40 IL Iw � a FMW IR 1M MU16 8 113=10 m NOME M ®ali A 9'-11' Dmr. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS I. _ � MNRD 9AFTL4 CRL71Ml /Alo. i n a CPU `\ wart ras In FAMim 1AwAa BAlIIOYIL M10� 0""M/la I ""i4ARr 5 DA,4, IT/ 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/11' = 1' – 0" 4/- tr-tr Flan "m mm mw m mmm BECK F N a i/ s�rte �saee. Dmry ilk 16' ter. I trr,srAFE L) mU LL. { y T n`\� /// I O CLU FIN R7 M// a Ld \`\ \> O LTJ W I Z DD OF CALL //// LTJ JO O CL VNNKW MAP Ld 'Z / o // Aeo,zls.i FMO, s>rllacllols / / / / / / rAorcr AooA>'� 441 K OW 14WM EVD. A1, 440 ■ OLD NWW N.M MD1FRr fJ01, G GOOD M1E 1- Ki M OLD WON - f ■1O RIR o0,M v= IE/L,L FARIIF76 = / m �f4 721 AF f 400-01-12 ! 2-4 kOLD N♦i=OVD. i "`� Km 0 AFI 420-M-17 - MtDO, CODA 2D10 G CPC. 1MDreo a1DL A1, olY AMO,IO/IS 2010 ot,, AND rsD A,s ore TIM V-4 7nOG usls ooK W a � � .i n PROJtxF DESCRA06KW RDInDW A0.11fW IHM MY 7L FA,OO MFF OE]O:f E)DfINO !fD St102.TAE Ii-PAE T AREA BREAKD0WN 0K 1 AG MOD V uDr, ArEt 110, WI Attr2MA2 441 IE11VNf i!O SITE PLAN PAM& A2IURD FOR WOO OFA2 rD1 2"K ®c Y 2rA1a PARKDIO PROVIDED s,lxrs rimsu ADYlPI PADrOtIY FMO, H PAIMM FOR 03MM0 W IO T AND 2MM= 1001E 11101Lm 07 .atm 1 SII,VD ADMMU Al, I IM ACCM7 20 LL0 PFA)JWr WA7WTM Al Ib a Eo 0 �e PIBOl7 SRRPRq PFR rDY 9rVow TIP sr -r •rr rD i EXISTING VA;ANT STORAGE # i (BUILDING T.^, g„ :... Awl ®c E1M Oa ® --- o ro alga YorrAW1 ww A00®I P11NW 1tr U 0* am D 001E W,AK PAIS � a;. AAAE>s EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL SITE 2 EXISTING VACANT BUILDING (N.I.C.) iJm CF. 445mww KIL Aa Fmm 1a Ri mum B Ia9R= W IIEIORE M 110on 11 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS rAEIm ERiNE 01611aYL NE10R i n j.Fsvu �Imf P6I M .Milo WMAR PPmIW111L AWIa. I ZrRIM PER CITY 9VAM M 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8' = 1' - 0' O 4/- lr-Ir n= TIFF Hmz omm m RF1EE1 BECK I MARTIN I Dam om TO mmm Z 1 I EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING is STREET EacH CA eacco 3SW r-- - TYPE *4 FS �1 I ' Fmmmulam Y I ' F 1 pmem REERRCIWN I I 16'-0• 16' om. 1 D.T.a mRDDR I I I I • I I I ' I i � PIBOl7 SRRPRq PFR rDY 9rVow TIP sr -r •rr rD i EXISTING VA;ANT STORAGE # i (BUILDING T.^, g„ :... Awl ®c E1M Oa ® --- o ro alga YorrAW1 ww A00®I P11NW 1tr U 0* am D 001E W,AK PAIS � a;. AAAE>s EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL SITE 2 EXISTING VACANT BUILDING (N.I.C.) iJm CF. 445mww KIL Aa Fmm 1a Ri mum B Ia9R= W IIEIORE M 110on 11 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS rAEIm ERiNE 01611aYL NE10R i n j.Fsvu �Imf P6I M .Milo WMAR PPmIW111L AWIa. I ZrRIM PER CITY 9VAM M 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8' = 1' - 0' O 4/- lr-Ir n= TIFF Hmz omm m RF1EE1 O 0CL U PER arc TIP � \\ 0 / / ~ 3: < Ld Wm O Z paf BID asou Z O CL BECK Z w MARTIN d r� Z 1 / / is STREET EacH CA eacco ALCl77ElL MA1OW REHRRCila6 I �1 Daws st.E � I pmem REERRCIWN 16'-0• 16' om. LVOWAPE V mQ �iLL. U I.L- ^ O 0CL U PER arc TIP � \\ 0 / / ~ 3: < Ld Wm O Z paf BID asou Z O CL Z w Z / / / / / / ALCl77ElL MA1OW REHRRCila6 I �1 HOQ.T ACDQ K1 K aD lER.OIC ■!4 AID f13 K aD 1aaR ■10. IOIa1R m0� G Palle 311E 1 - 441 M OLD NBW= HA O.IR acFA11 VEER IED O L Po"m Ill' 1R AOIN w , m ” m� AI / Nl-D1-1s m a - +a a alD /oPaRr elw. o i Rm o A. f 420-271-17 ll a COW 7010 CAIAM M ffAM G CCR ND Citi AIEMONIiCt lox C14 CEC ND CPC. mano TMPD w NNQ OPiES POCNL 00 � �i n PROJECT DEWItPnDkt e APAM R7 FOR PN IIOOIDUTIMI ID RCIUrIE-PN[ AN AI! s AREA BREAKDOWN FIE 1 AG 2&= 3F .UlalW ARCA 11310 3F M ALL*M 111 ICUOIff iYD p .Nllm la WCO PER NNW OM 30 WP PARKM PROVIDED WE G PLAN SUNK .AI.aC !J ADAAa91f PIWPRM IYREIa x PARIOIID FDR EmIPW sanW RFSIWCI® To (ort ND REEIDDd TOaLL PIIrNWm 61 .a WEl 1 $MOM A==KE NO a WN Aaaa SREl3 Al Fl10�lQr CTATMRIO� O b • R—=,i I I I I I mI I I I � RmI '�oMf IN PL F��Nme1 F7D370 dim I �: YIW A]�dPNROW SITE 2 I /`V; Lvesm EXISTING VACANT r[a& I BUILDING (N.I.C.) /DC®F PI10•B :�, 4 I I C®lDQCIm R80r. I=IMD y Z WPM�aCITY I _ .. ji// DO OF ANL / // r � PNRRs MR Im Ruud Is ImIR7m m mwm N• mom EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING Z 7 '. '•r 7 A6r 't TIPS V -a FS FRRf I � RRA67 A=00 Q MI M. dD NENPW RD16 NC IlR M DID N W RL6 NOl "mD ,GM o 9D: I - +41 N OLD NFRPORP ROD "' I m7rDeoamonR ORIRIl ��IRD f PVAlIF/6 Ill' NUIv anlEmmm N / 42S-M-12EEjj ZU Y - +90 N. OLD NMVM W. I N.M o ' 1 t 111� 1 m 0 aa -m-17 � ly My{, MDW CORD 010 DOOM •lLM COK FI• UN A DMFM6 mo CIC. Cm AIC CFC mom "m w PL a, � � 7O ®�eamYti F��Nme1 F7D370 dim I �: YIW A]�dPNROW SITE 2 I /`V; Lvesm EXISTING VACANT r[a& I BUILDING (N.I.C.) /DC®F PI10•B RFDRDCIRW 1 I=IMD SONDVC M' Z WPM�aCITY I _ .. ji// DO OF ANL / // r � PNRRs MR Im Ruud Is ImIR7m m mwm N• mom a, � � 7O ®�eamYti F��Nme1 F7D370 dim I �: YIW A]�dPNROW ®FPNDf I /`V; Lvesm I /DC®F PI10•B RFDRDCIRW I PBI CD7 Mry CLU� L` j Z 7NRrJ0FD OOENINK I _ .. ji// DO OF ANL / // Z OC_ S F7Bl. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS MMIFD FRRRCE uRDDowY �. ff sut Pasts ■7iRll7D NRv/�a OMODNUL.1•NIII R ARPM PFR CM 991CVC M Ee 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8' = 1' - 0' BECK MARTIN AROwnmmm cas Is ,r-7' F7RTY p•E +/- 1r -,r n= mm Hm Dra= m Ram PxRRn usl7suNs 16 ,e -e I i ZLdZ Lvesm V mU /DC®F PI10•B RFDRDCIRW OO PBI CD7 Mry CLU� L` j Z Lo I EL �� ji// DO OF ANL / // Z OC_ ZLdZ /DC®F PI10•B RFDRDCIRW RRA67 A=00 Q MI M. dD NENPW RD16 NC IlR M DID N W RL6 NOl "mD ,GM o 9D: I - +41 N OLD NFRPORP ROD ORIRIl ��IRD f PVAlIF/6 Ill' N / 42S-M-12EEjj ZU Y - +90 N. OLD NMVM W. I N.M o ' 1 t 111� 1 m 0 aa -m-17 � ly MDW CORD 010 DOOM •lLM COK FI• UN A DMFM6 mo CIC. Cm AIC CFC mom "m w ., mrQ 0771x oaaL o0 � ' � .i n MWJ= DESCRIPI m a o U=.DNCFIIF POOR= FDR PA@0C mmw m" *m sranm NF F" MC or > AREA BREAKDOWN aDiC% iA 9 NDE NJM/HC ++1 NL9PORf FlVD SITE PLAN M" Y=M M HOWL MW M =W NDC Y lM2R PARIOND PROVIDED MMM MMM O MMff PAM= u M= M DWW MDW RFARLM m OW AC RmRtC6 10011 PIVIC[D 67 Esme Al 1-1 McEa BGICFR I AAC11C A3>®IC A• 2 WM A7®Y ANLR PIIOIOT r-ATN'IIDs b b �' PAMnw sascei ra L9T 11P Mw solo O 0c) I k - + BUILDING (N.I.C.) MARTIN / // / / I ism v. TIK V-4 i EXISTING VA4NT STORAGE nMM1 rAOE (Suit -LING T^ IAMOIMD I 22r -e 2r -W PAPM R6 AHI aawi s am= m MYe6E Ai Moss Manb w NkSRI. / I v . .: :...,..-`.:,�1;t;1;.::FC• .„i... .._ rG.'it: i --- PALM 4 l':'..n i:.'t.v:S'.ti v:15.•. `.:.w..v::4 Y: p.1.h:+;.:4��1' .. _ �I I I I b nmmoramm era h s' � 2 6fYGlm oP,a.1MMr IV n^, I® tf Kvl 1rAMai � nr rAwc EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING Ism TOPE V-% FA , 24'-0” PI,Dn., ADDS «, M. OID MmrafRs .,Q AMo .b M. aD MEAMOIIf 6M. IOrOMf �L G db 6IE I- K1 M OLD Marg! 610 can ova m eum >m DD,cn6an :� y � I O3 ®VNI /OSI PMMIO p2;,'p arrAi6 II f'r vAM ADoo�crAMMw I— 1 L10rV ora m eua M ,r4 1..G cy- N I kn-3P,-OII M3- NV M. f 610. '_ ` ■ , wMrwnm DaK rwao � ... _. � woue rAq.• DOLD FFElt am o r MOS ]OI urm a 0,4A M-17 Yi b jlli/i� ii I EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.) PL s� r� SITE z BECK O 0c) EXISTING VACANT //// // + BUILDING (N.I.C.) MARTIN / // / / I ism v. TIK V-4 Ld O L'L'I m Z 4'6,aar eat CA. C PAPM R6 AHI aawi s am= m MYe6E Ai Moss w I PEDESTRIAN ACCESS we1lm s,1r7a oMmnEr. AMAOM n �-aartvai lrr � ���010 r��mawAaDPsx„PMALAMMIM \ / AMSWi / SWOVo TIP/ 441 N. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8' = I' - 0' O 4/- 15--16 mw nm Hma mm m mm t <'/\\\\ ////// 1 BECK O 0c) PEA ary „P \\ \\ O //// // �::Q MARTIN / // / / I Ld O L'L'I m Z / / / / / ' C END OF esu / / / / / w / o tnre66[ IV UNDgm PI,Dn., ADDS «, M. OID MmrafRs .,Q AMo .b M. aD MEAMOIIf 6M. IOrOMf �L G db 6IE I- K1 M OLD Marg! 610 � I( Qs M @s DMIQ OflAN 1dWMCAL�RWf Hr�MilE16 UL' DM 711� I— cy- <'/\\\\ ////// 1 Z LLJZ O 0c) PEA ary „P \\ \\ O //// // �::Q \\\ \% / // / / I Ld O L'L'I m Z / / / / / ' C END OF esu / / / / / L d —j 0 / Z LLJZ / / / / / ' AO®1 PMgi MESllecii,M I PI,Dn., ADDS «, M. OID MmrafRs .,Q AMo .b M. aD MEAMOIIf 6M. IOrOMf �L G db 6IE I- K1 M OLD Marg! 610 � I( Qs M @s DMIQ OflAN 1dWMCAL�RWf Hr�MilE16 UL' DM 711� N I kn-3P,-OII M3- NV M. f 610. O ■ DOLD FFElt am o 0,4A M-17 Yi 6ani m@1 AVID V' l/OM1 "No LOfC MD a" AMEMp[MR Amo oc, RO AMD cm ono I17n w mw avnx onaMa o0 � 0 � � � R PmWT DESCRIPI M o LmDi AoaaMr McFaIT EOIL mmm Ill� mw IED s+RSIME Mi -NK *0 sw AREA M2EM DO" !IE 1 AMO. is= si KI ML"p, 61D rani AMGt1+610 ! im MLOWAE PMgi mmwn Ri mmc MIM PEA ZOtiM lbo[ EM lIQS porno O PRfMMDED - -- VI 1 G PLM sIMNlZ IIAfOM43 AOAI®n rMOPDMr PMMMi 14 PM = FOR EA61Mo 6MDMi MWMCTM m ,MOIL AND 111MO t IOD1 Haim n I SV Mm AIME Ali 3 MW A=NMZ Mau MIOrlQ� RATN7106 Al NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Appeal — Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination — An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Lot Merger and Alternative Setback Determination. The Lot Merger, including a request to waive the parcel map requirement, would combine two parcels into one lot for single -unit residential development. The Alternative Setback Determination, which is intended in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the standard setbacks are not consistent with other lots in the vicinity, would establish all setbacks compatible with adjacent properties. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the setbacks and the requirement to eliminate an existing curb cut along 6th Street. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64 and Section 19.12.060 (Subdivision Code). The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Fern Nueno, Associate Planner, at (949) 644-3227, fnueno@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2013-176 Activity No.: LM2013-003 and SA2013-011 Zone: R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) General Plan: RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) Location: 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front Applicant: Morgan Davis Leilani I. Brown, MMC, City Clerk City of Newport Beach CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On TA✓1 vAav-2014, 1 posted Site Notices of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Appeal - Davis Lot Merger and Setback Determination (PA2013-176) Locations: 106 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front Date of City Council Public Hearing: January 28, 2014 — genu along rine to j _ ® ��Y® 5160® Use Avery®T®mplate 59600 , Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeT"' j � � 048 07311 Credit Webb 1005 Ginsberg Ct Riverside CA 92506 048 073 14 Clarinda Francis 2319 Teasley St La Crescenta CA 91214 048 073 17 Abhay Parikh Po Box 3583 Newport Beach CA 92659 048 073 24 Dwight Flaherty 860 W 25th St Upland CA 91784 048 073 27 Tod Ridgeway 516 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 048 073 30 Argent LLC 522 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 MORGAN DAVIS 524 W. OCEAN FRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MORGAN DAVIS 524 W. OCEAN FRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 048 07312 Kimm Richardson 413 S Glassell St Orange CA 92866 048 073 15 Cherie Flournoy 507 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 07318 John Scarsi 513 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 073 25 Xavier TR 118 Waterford Cir Rancho Mirage CA 92270 048 073 28 Timothy Dean 18803 Deville Dr Yorba Linda CA 92886 CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOC. PO BOX 884 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ERIC F. MOSSMAN, ARCHITECT 2025 W. BALBOA BLVD., STE -B- NEWPORT B"NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ERIC F. MOSSMAN, ARCHITECT 2025 W. BALBOA BLVD., STE "B" NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 �mwoz* pmew 048 073 13 Patricia Schwary 107 Island Ave Newport Beach CA 92661 048 073 16 McClellan Harris III 3419 Via Lido Newport Beach CA 92663 048 073 23 Ronald Richard Soto 25435 Gallup Cir Laguna Hills CA 92653 048 073 26 Craig Smith Po Box 2625 Newport Beach CA 92659 048 073 29 Morgan Davis 524 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 ERIC F. MOSSMAN, ARCHITECT 2025 W. BALBOA BLVD., STE "B" NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LABELS PREP'D 8/28/13 PA2013-176 for LM2013-003 106 6th Street and 524 W. Ocean Front CD -1 LABELS -80 rot Ltiquettes faciles a peter ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averytom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600Di cha gernent reveler le rebord Pop-upTM j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 m_.y rWWI - 4 IJWIa , Use Avery® Tdmplate 51600 ;iC�i°riaort reach ::1300 Ne�rtp�b�°'181.. Newport Beach CA 9199 04302208 Scott Robinson 7,117 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 04802211 Nielsen Nina Estate 608 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 022 14 James Eggold 15 Oakbrook Coto De Caza CA 92679 048 022 17 Ingham TR 136 Via Trieste Newport Beach CA 92663 048 022 21 Robert Lester Hampton 615 W Bay Ave Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 04 Joseph Allan Beek 128 De La Costa Ave Santa Cruz CA 95060 04802407 Michael Carden Po Box 2682 Newport Beach CA 92659 048 024 11 Noreen Politiski 600 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 14 Rex Butler 2 Sandpiper Strand Coronado CA 92118 ® ® fiend along line to I jFeed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j 048 022 06 John Poochigian 9 Salerno Irvine CA 92614 048 022 09 Patricia McCoy 35664 Oak Glen Rd Yucaipa CA 92399 048 022 12 Bryan Holmes 2505 N Cottonwood St Orange CA 92865 i 048 022 15 Scott & Jill Richards 205 6th St Newport Beach CA 92661 048 022 18 Robert Partridge 607 W Bay Ave Newport Beach CA 92661 048 022 25 Horace Benjamin 19 Beacon Bay Newport Beach CA 92660 048 024 05 Mary Alice Lefebvre 318 W Ocean Front Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 08 Norman Hoffman 116 W Lake St Waconia MN 55387 048 024 12 Michael Philipps 604 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 16 Laurence O'Neill 732 Longridge Rd Oakland CA 94610 D�ANMRYO 51600 048 022 07 Marjorle Hazen 500 W Bay Ave Newport Beach CA 92661 048 022 10 Kim Giangregorio 3610 Marcus Ave Newport Beach CA 92663 048 022 13 Jeffrey Clay 18 Turnberry Dr Coto De Caza CA 92679 048 022 16 Andrew & Diane Jessup 599 S Fern Canyon Dr Palm Springs CA 92264 048 022 20 Thaddeus Richards 613 W Bay Ave Newport Beach CA 92661 048 022 26 Daniel Thompson Jr. 609 W Bay Ave Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 06 j F R Jones Management LLC 7100 Capistrano Ave West Hills CA 91307 048 024 10 Michael Philipps 604 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 13 Paula Knight 107 6th St Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 17 Bradley Moses 613 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 I:tiquettes faciles a peler ; ® sde Repliez a la hachure afro de 11www.avery-com Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 j cha gement reveler le rebord Pop-upTM i 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Use Amery® *mplate 51600 048 024 19 Norma Schall 6191x'1! Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 23 David Darrel Depauw 608 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 048 024 26 B & C Property Holding 3614 E Shallow Brook Ln Orange CA 92867 048 071 03 De Verna Lyons 3000 Park Newport #102 Newport Beach CA 92660 048 071 10 John Westrem 1006 E Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 071 13 - Cecilia Smith Po Box 7443 Riverside CA 92513 048 071 17 Terry Mccaleb Inc 300 Carlsbad Village Or #108A Carlsbad CA 92008 71 20 Littlet By The Sea 2 Sandpiper S" and Coronado CA 9211~x. 048 073 02 Davis FAMILY TR 524 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 048 073 08 Joseph DeCarlo 510 W Oceanfront Newport Beach CA 92661 ttiquettes faciles a peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® Bend along line to © AVERY® 51600 jFeed Paper expose Pop-up Edge m 048 024 20 048 024 22 Jean Dudley Vermeeren Barber Margo Nb -15 - 7291 E Columbus Or 606 W Oceanfront - . Anaheim CA -92807, Newport Beach -CA 92661 0 048 024 24 Hsia TR 20781 Alicante Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 048 024 27 Cornelis Van Mechelen 609 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 071 04 Bay Island Club 18 Bay Is Newport Beach CA 92661 048 071 11 Jack TR 1727 Paloma Or Newport Beach CA 92660 048 071 14 Main Professional LLC 520 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 071 18 Terry Mccaleh Inc 300 Carlsbad Village Or #108A Carlsbad CA 92008 048 071 21 Little Market By The Sea 2 Sandpiper Strand Coronado CA 92118 048 073 05 Eric Gustayson 3657 Cross Creek Rd Malibu CA 90265 048 073 09 Survivors Webb 1005 Ginsberg Ct Riverside CA 92506 ® ' Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de ; chargement reveler le rebord Pop-upTM 04802426 Jurenka TR 4497 California Ave Long Beach CA 90807 048 071 02 Dora Arash 515 W Bay Ave Newport Beach CA 92661 048 071 09 Linda Moses 1743 Miramar Or Newport Beach CA 92661 048 071 12 Gollins TR 18724 Turfway Park Yorba Linda CA 92886 048 071 15 500 West Balboa LLC 500 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 071 19 Homayoun Farah 1121 Vista Lomas Ln Corona CA 92882 048 073 01 Richard & Insuk Michaelson 523 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 048 073 07 Albert Norton Younglove 6122 Hawarden Or Riverside CA 92506 048 073 10 William Adkins 3215 Pacific Coast Hwy Torrance CA 90505 www.averycom 1 -800 -GO -AVERY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the notice published. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH/COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on September 29, 1961, case A6214, and June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and the State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Saturday; January 18, 2014 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 30, 2014 at Los Angeles, California