HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Encroachment Permit 2003-0272 - 2200 Waterfront DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 12
August 12, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Gilbert Wong, Associate Engineer
949 - 644 -3311
gwong @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. N2003 -0272 TO ALLOW THE
EXISTING CURB OPENING ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF
WATERFRONT DRIVE TO REMAIN
APPLICANT: Carole Kendall
ISSUE: Determine if a curb opening can be permitted for a residential property
that abuts an alley.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Encroachment Permit No. N2003 -0272.
DISCUSSION:
Rod A. Jeheber, the Architect representing Carole Kendall the owner of the property
located at 2200 Waterfront Drive in Corona Del Mar, requests permission to preserve
an existing curb opening on the northerly side of Waterfront Drive to provide access for
a two -car garage (see attached letter, exhibit, and photos). The property is at the
corner of Avocado Avenue and Waterfront Drive.
The property has two existing detached units; both units are designed with the main
entrance off Avocado Avenue. The front unit has vehicular access via a driveway to a
two car garage off Waterfront Drive and the rear unit has vehicular access off the alley
to a two -car garage.
The applicant proposes the replacement of the two existing detached units with two
new detached units. The new units would retain vehicular access via the driveway and
off the alley. The main entrance to both units will be off Avocado Avenue.
City Council Policy L -2.0 under RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND RESIDENTIAL USES —
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS states: "Street curb openings shall not be permitted to
residential property which abuts an alley." An exception may be made for corner lots
under special circumstances (i.e. existing structure prevents full alley access or additional
SUBJECT: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. N2003 -0272 TO ALLOW THE EXISTING CURB OPENING ON THE NORTHERLY
SIDE OF WATERFRONT DRIVE TO REMAIN
August 12, 2003
Page 2
covered off - street parking is being provided). Although staff recognizes that the required
four parking spaces can be accessed off the alley, staff does not oppose retaining the,;.
existing driveway access off Waterfront Drive. The Policy states that the curb opening
would be on the side of the lot, not the front as proposed in this case. There is no benefit
to requiring a curb opening off Avocado Avenue versus Waterfront Drive, because a
driveway at either location eliminates only one public parking space and there are
sufficient public parking spaces along the adjacent streets. In addition, there are design
constraints because of the two existing storm drain catch basins along the Avocado
Avenue frontage and the grade differential is approximately 18 -feet from the alley to
Waterfront Drive. The proposed development meets the minimum requirement of two
parking spaces (one covered and one uncovered) per unit and is providing two additional
parking spaces (one covered and one uncovered) off Waterfront Drive. An existing brick
wall across the alley from this site hinders alley access by only allowing a 19' clearance to
the new garage (Traffic Division requires a minimum 20' of clearance) and is a special
circumstances condition of the Policy which would allow street access. Conversely, the
new rear unit does have alley access to a two -car garage. In addition, the property
owner's plans to reconstruct the existing substandard driveway approach off Waterfront
Drive conform with current City standards. Eliminating the existing driveway off
Waterfront Drive will only provide one additional space for street parking, whereas
allowing the existing driveway to remain can provide two additional vehicles to be parked
off the street without encroaching into the public right -of -way.
Mr. Jeheber has stated the owner is providing more courtyard /open space with a two unit
development instead of one massive residential building with little open space. Allowing
the property owner to retain driveway access off Waterfront Drive will not set precedent
on Waterfront Drive as there are 3 other properties (2204, 2207, and 2215 Waterfront
Drive are non -comer lot properties) which abut an alley and have driveway access due to
grade differential /structure impediment alley to access. Although this development
doesn't completely conform to the Policy, it does meet the intent.
Environmental Review: This action is categorically exempt per Section 15303.
Public Notice: Public posting /notification is not required for this action.
Fundinq Availability: No City funds will be required. The property owner will pay all
costs for the driveway approach replacement or abandonment.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Girt Wong St n durT
Associate Engineer PublicyfiDfks Director
Attachments: Letter dated July 24, 2003,
Exhibit, and Photos
R.A. JEHEBER
PLANNING & DESIGN
July 24, 2003
Mayor Bromberg and City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: PLAN CHECK # 1498 -2003
2200 WATERFRONT DRIVE
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
Dear Honorable Mayor Bromberg and City Council:
This letter shall serve as a formal request not to eliminate driveway access on Waterfront
Drive due to the proposed above referenced development. The driveway approach proposed
in the above referenced plan check currently exists. The width and curb cut of the proposed
driveway is exactly the same as that of the existing driveway. We are rebuilding the proposed
driveway primarily to meet current city standards.
We request that City Council approves the proposed driveway for several reasons.
1. The driveway and the access it provides meet the intent and scope of City Council
Policy L -2, the "Residential Zones and Residential Uses- Special Requirements ". The
subject property is a comer lot, additional off -street parking is being provided, the
width of the curb is well below one -half the lot depth, the curb is less than 20 feet
wide, and the proposed driveway grades are within code.
2. Alley Parking: The length of our property line at the alley side is 44' -0 ". After
subtracting 4' -1" on each side for the side yard setbacks, that leaves us with 35' -10"
to provide (4) four covered parking spaces. The minimum requirement for a (2) two -
car garage is 17' -6" clear so we would need 35' -0" clear for (4) four covered parking
spaces. Add in at least 12" for (3) three garage walls and we are coming up short. We
could provide (1) one carport parking space in the side yard setback, but we feel that
most people buying a million dollar home in Corona Del Mar would prefer to have a
(2) two car garage instead of a carport parking space. It should also be noted that the
property located at 426 Avocado to the rear of our property faces Avocado Ave. and
their side yard abuts to the alley and there is an existing block wall on their property
line which really only gives us 19' -0" clear to back out of our proposed garage.
3. Parking. The proposed development with the proposed Waterfront driveway access
provides six (6) off -street parking spaces without eliminating any existing street
parking. Mandating only alley access would reduce off -street parking to a total of
four (4) spaces.
4. Economic: The plans have been completely designed and engineered. Eliminating
410 32ND STREET, SUITE 202 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • 92663
PHONE: 949.723 -4393 • FAX: 949- 723 -0719
-2— July 24, 2003
this driveway is not a minor change. It would require a complete redesign of both
units at significant cost and expense.
5. Grade: There is approximately 18 feet of grade change from the alley to Waterfront
Drive. Eliminating the Waterfront access would require additional grading, more
retaining walls, larger retaining walls, and more hardscape, but at the same time
would reduce softscape and open space.
6. Mass and scale: The proposed design is for two detached units, distinctly different,
one as a Cape Cod and the other Santa Barbara. The units are ten feet apart at their
closest point. They will look like separate houses on separate lots. Open space and
softscape is maximized. The site plan clearly shows courtyard areas, side yards, open
space and separation of the buildings. Eliminating the Waterfront access would
require us to move the Waterfront unit closer to the alley and attach it to the
Avocado unit. This would create one large building with little or no open space. It
may also separate the garage from the front unit by forty five to seventy five feet.
This is just not practical.
7. Lot size: The subject lot is huge. It is approximately 150 feet long on Avocado
Avenue and 44 feet wide on Waterfront Street. The square footage is approximately
the same as two (2) standard 30' x 118' lots. Our design attempts to space out the
Waterfront and Avocado units using the upper back half for the Cape Cod Unit,
with alley access and the lower front half for the Santa Barbara Unit, with Waterfront
access. The adjacent neighbor also has an unusually large lot and also has a driveway
off of Waterfront Drive. We feel the Waterfront access is the best, if not only, good
design solution for these unusually large lots.
In closing, we request Waterfront access because it currently exists and the hardship it would
cause to change it. We also hope that City Council will recognize that this unusual corner lot
meets the exception criteria of L2, and that the design provides more parking and open
space than the alternative, yet minimizes the mass of the building by separating the units. We
look forward to City Council's approval of this request.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 949/723 -4393.
1. (3) Three Photographs showing views at our existing driveway on Waterfront drive,
our next -door neighbors driveway at 2204 Waterfront Drive, and a view from the
intersection of Avocado Ave. and Waterfront Drive looking up Avocado, which
shows the great slope of our lot.
2. (1) One reduced site plan
3. (1) One reduced exterior side elevation from Avocado Ave.
11?�=-3-C27P )
pu1E E -, - ---, 4""
- . t 4 111 .- I
� i =10 0111111M
--- - - -------------
X X
Nsoos- 02:7z
--., r
?:�'Y kA � -P, i -r
V1NUO=II-1V7 'UVW 130 VNOUO:)
3A]U0 IN0U=IU31VM OOZZ
if
ill 1NOM=1M31VAA 0077
pu1E E -, - ---, 4""
- . t 4 111 .- I
� i =10 0111111M
--- - - -------------
X X
Nsoos- 02:7z
--., r
?:�'Y kA � -P, i -r
VIN21031Td7'HVW 130 VN0210:)
h 3AR10 1NOE13213IVM OOZZ 1
Ste' va i9, '71l 1NOU=IU31tlM OOZZ jjs i (j i f Q
W ■_ —
HE
F
Ny�
Q
Z
O
F
Q
J
W
W
N
F
J
1
1
p
z
i
p
0
a
J
W
W
N
F-
W
W
J
N -ZDO3- 02°72
r
ffil■
A
fr;
\j
i .
s � �
y,rt. RL
r �
Txr
Mti '
1.. -?
.
•.e
f
0
•
1 4 f
O
QQ
03
r"I
iv / •/• ,Y. r
1 � Q
'..a+�•+* 1, � \~ V.
V (_
•y � 5
1'r• q v l :
e
. � S tike a rFf. f ,� �}* ,., 4•; � N.-
�'a r' .awl iI ! '4, •'..
n
'. •rN �� r ��• f1 "J
t. k�YA .,fit
41` \
I
\�3
:
I
.l'
pf.
C�•. ,• .6 «,.ie. ,��! a y;.ix,,;"
F �� wy r 4T"�,Ar "� f. �� v..•
ry. .••. <� ^`�q� '� � �;, �. a . -.
ZO
�. .. TVT_J1y • w'•
i�
1, ..
.l'
pf.
C�•. ,• .6 «,.ie. ,��! a y;.ix,,;"
F �� wy r 4T"�,Ar "� f. �� v..•
ry. .••. <� ^`�q� '� � �;, �. a . -.
ZO
�. .. TVT_J1y • w'•
i�
Y
t';
.
4,.
GSA ��• #,�
: �i:r � (}'
\�.t� ,.. ,
rr♦ r
i�
At
7r
Fi-
rP
9
'AW
41
.- JFAAZd s
�l
is t
0
1
•
i
1i
�l
L
Iz-
O
qM
E
1, � F
T�
M
O
�
M
' -
I�
. k:
L
Iz-
O
qM
E
1, � F
:'r.
_ 11
Y
�I
t �
1