Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Appeal of Denial of Lot Merger_PA2011-141 - 2808 & 2812 Ocean Boulevard - Memorandum'�'gwrok T v .2 C,I <IFO VOI n Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3237 To: City Council From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Date: April 20, 2012 Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt Re: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141) Please find the following for the March 22, 2012 Planning Commission meeting for Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141): approved minutes and signed Resolution 1872. Because the minutes were approved at the April 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, these documents are presented to you as supplemental information that was received by staff after printing of the City Council staff report. Please keep these documents for the April 24, 2012, meeting. Thank you. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03!2212012 G. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger — (PA2011 -141) 2608 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Chair Toerge read the title to the aforementicned item.. opened the public hearing and called for a report from staff. Community Development Director Brandt reported this is an unusual item for the Planning Commission to consider in :hat it has been before the Commission previously with action taken denying the project. The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council and it referred the item back to the Commission for additional review and recommendations and return to Council for final action. Ms. Brandt deferred to staff for a report. Assistant Planner Kay Sims presented details of the report addressing location, previous approval by th Zoning Administrator, and subsecuent consideration and action by the Planning Commission. She stated that the Council referred the item back to the Planning Commission for review of the applicant's alternative development standards for maximum height and floor area which are more restrictive than those allowed by the City's Zoning Code for Single - Family properties within Corona del Mar. She presented exhibits of the merged property and addressed total lot area for the merged property, buildab!e area, allowed floor area limit and the applicant's proposed alternative. She addressed the City's allowed height limits for a sloped and flat roof and the applicant's proposed height. Ms. Sims noted that if the alternative standards are approved, a condition of approval is included requiring that prior to recordation of the lot merger a restrictive covenant :rust be recorded with the County Recorder's Office s=ating the alternative development standards and requiring that all future development on the property must comply with those standards. She noted the attendance of the applicant and representative and offered to respond to questions from the Commission. Chair Toerge invited the applicant and /or his representative to address the Commission on this item. Coralee Newman., Principal with Government Solutions, gave a PowerPoint presentation and addressed the Commission representing the applicant and property owner. She introduced her professional team, who she indicated, will be available to respond to questions from the Commission. Ms. Newman addressed self- imposed conditions to deal with concems based on the height, mass and scale of the proposed home and clarified that at the last Planning Commission meeting, Members indicated there were no plans to review. However, she indicated plans were submitted to the Building Division but were not presented. Subsequent to the Planning Commission. and City Council meetings, Ms. Newman stated the applicant has worked on the self - imposed conditions to find a way to provide the City and community with surely that what is being proposed will be built. She affirmed agreement with the condition of approval requiring a restrictive covenant as stated by staff. Ms. Newman expressed that she would like to add another restrictive covenant to increase the side setbacks to require six (6) feet side setbacks rather than the 4400t -side setbacks currently required by the Zoning Code. Ms. Newman read the appeal of the Zoning Administrator into the record as, "By the City allowing the interior lot lines to be removed by the lot merger, the City has (according to the formula for the deed restriction in each lot) given him (i.e., Mr. Guida) the opportunity to break the current restrictions and go to an increase in height and add considerable increase in the bulk of his structure." She distributed copies of Exhibit 1, identifying the five homeowners that are part of the covenant as well as Mr. Cliff Jones, who has been representing various parties. Ms. Newman reported that when the covenants were originally entered into it was between two (2) parties, involving four (4) lots wherein the two (2) parties granted easements to each other. However, she noted the applicant's respect for his neighbors' requests to keep the house at one story and limit the heights. Ms. Newman provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing the subject lots, homes not part of the covenants and previously presented information Rob Sinclair, Sinclair Associates Architects, presented renderings of the house to explain the project relative to mass and character. He reported working on other landmark properties in Newport Beach and addressed concerns regarding the mass and height of the proposed house. Mr. Sinclair reported the merged lots would create an 80 -foot wide lot and addressed setbacks, neighboring properties, scale, creation, of an open corner, stepping masses and established grade. Page 2 of 17 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03 %2212012 Mr. Sinclair noted that the owner has an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) necessity and addressed the finished floor an,: creation of a long ramp. He reported that the house will be 5,952 square feet of above- ground space which includes the house and a three [3) car garage. A basement is proposer', but its square footage is not included in the above - ground floor area calculations per Newport Beach Zoning Code regulations. In addition, he presented building areas of the properties developed as single lots and footprint of the proposed residence and addressed a one -story deed restriction between the buyer and adjacent neighbors, Mr. Sinclair presented illustrations of the revised plan including removal of an elevator, inclusion of a grass roof, preservation of views and elevations. Ms. Newman concluded the presentation stating the belief that the proposed lot merger and home address the neighbors' issues and concerns as stated in their appeal. She reported the applicant is limiting himself to a 1.0 floor area limit. that the City Code allows 1.5 and that although a height of 24 feet is allowed, because of the covenant and sensitivity to neighbors, he is restricting himself to a maximum of 15.6 feet anywhere in the house, as well as a one - story, flat roof home. She stated agreement to increase side yard setbacks to those that wcJld be on two (2) single lots so the increase of each side yard setbacks would total four (4) feet. Brief discussion followed regarding existence of a basement, which is allowed by Code but not counted inward the total square footage allowed on the property. Chair Toerge stated the application is unique in that there was a ruling by the Zoning Administrator, a paid appeal by adjacent neighbors and a decision made by the Planning Commission, an appeal to City Council and referral of the item back to the Planning Commission. He indicated that he was compelled to offer the initial appellants additional time to present their information. Cliff Jones, representing the initial appellants, gave a PowerPoint presentation and requested the Planning Commission deny the lot merger noting that those who will be most affected by the proposed project are the adiacent neighbors. He stated the City advised that the existing covenants cannot be ruled on as to their validity because they were private deed restrictions and not part of the City. He expressed confusion since initial discussion, pertained to a lot merger, but now it includes a house. He stated the existence of 11 deed and easement restrictions on the properties and the possibility of self - imposed additional restrictions covering the same area. Mr. Jones felt that the real facts of the issue_ were being obscured in that it is a lot merger which is why those he represents have not aggressively pursued the existing deed restrictions and easements through litigation. He referenced Title 19 and addressed the proposed changes noting that the house is 12,000 square feet with 6,000 being basement and raising it by four (4) feet which will affect the views. Mr. Jones addressed the established grace and restrictions and stated the overall height will be 19 feet, not 15.6 because of the allowance of guardrails on the deck. Mr. Jones noted that this is not about the house or the height, but rather a lot merger and felt the proposed application has had a substantial impact on the neighbors as they are advanced in age and the pressure has drawn on their strength and ability. He referenced the ordinance for lot mergers relative to consistency and compatibility and felt that the project fails to comply. Mr. Jones presented a brief history of the area, easements and existing covenants, noted the interconnection of the lots and referenced a petition signed by all adjacent neighbors opposing the lot merger. He addressed the distinguishing characteristics of the neighborhood, use of common alleys, underground utilities, lot size compared to the Ahmanson lot, impacts to views and comparable lots. Mr. Jones reiterated the action requested to the Planning Commission to re- affirm its previous decision regarding the lot merger. Discussion followed regarding the relationship between the lots, adherence to deed restrictions needed with redevelopment, limitations to build one -story structures, possible alternatives, impacts related to the size of the lot, existing housing stock along Ocean Boulevard, height concerns, possible impacts to the health of younger neighbors and that not being an issue, issues related to the size of the lot versus the lot merger and the probability of other lots becoming merged. Chair Toerge opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Dufine, representing the Campbell's, gave a PowerPoint presentation and addressed the existing covenant restricting homes to one -story noting it was intended for the back lots to grant easements to front lots in trade for a view. He stressed the need to comply with the existing covenants rather than the self - imposed covenants being proposed. He disagreed that the lot merger will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development noting that the lot merger law says nothing about the house, but rather protecting the community as to the size of the lot. Pace 3 of 17 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/2212012 John Silva reported the proposed project has affected his health and welfare. Alberta Silva noted they have been part of the community for a long time, always servicing people in some capacity; she noted their house is their dream, that the proiect has affected their health and welfare and referenced a previous meeting with Mr. Guide. She mentioned that his purpose for the meeting was to remove :heir easement for the purpose of his plans. I'virs. Silva asked that the Planning Commission not allow the merger and felt that it will decrease the value of their house and add to her husband's and her health problems. Peter Campbell, representing his parents Joan and Robert Campbell, noted they are not 20 -year old tri- athletes but that this is their life and they have worked their entire life to be in this neighborhood, in their home. He stated the project has been very distressing and goes against progress. He stated no one in the neighborhood is for the lot merger and opined ivir. Guide has not shown any respect for them. Mr. Campbell asked that the Commission consider that this issue is affecting people's lives. Valerie Marcotfe felt''' ^at age and health are very relevant, especially since the ordinance addresses peoples' health, comfort, and peace. She addressed the importance of adhering to existing covenants, not the newly proposed covenants. Ms. Marcotte stressed the existing covenants specifically addressed easements and height, that adjacent neighbors do not want to took at the back of someone's garage and noted the differences between building one large house compared to two smaller houses and their related heights. Ms. Marcotte opined that the 3 -D illustrations presented by the applicant; do not match the reality when considering site lines. She addressed reduced property values and the health and welfare of the Campbell's in relation to the stress of construction, noise and the loss of their view. Dan Purcell noted the dear intent of the covenant was to protect views and addressed comparison of the lot to others (The Village) in Corona del Mar. He felt the project is injurious to the adjacent neighbors who purchased the properties knowing tite covenants were in place and referenced decreased property values in connection with the project. Mark Todd, Realtor for the Guida's, referenced building plans submitted for property on Ocean and Heliotrope noting that there will be construction in the area. He opined that the Guida's have been demonized, acknowledged the neighbor's concerns but. indicated his clients have a dream as well. He stated the house, above grade, will be smaller and noted that the square footage of the garage is typically, not counted. Mr. Todd referenced existing homes above grade. Ed Hepner reported that he organized the removal of telephone and electrical poles in the neighborhood in 2000. He addressed the Pattern of development in Block 34, noting all lots in the neighborhood are single lots. He felt that the proposed merger would be breaking with precedent and would be inconsistent with the zoning and building code. Dr. Danny Daneshmand, representing the owners of 2824 Ocean Boulevard, spoke in opposition to the proposed lot merger and stated that many neighboring residents are also opposed, addressed decreased property values, and opined that the approval of the lot merger will lead to lawsuits. Robert Hawkins felt iltat focus should be on the merger section and sub - division code, which he referenced, and addressed the need for consistency with the applicable zoning regulations as well as other regulations related to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. He opined that other regulations include easements affecting the property (the existing deed restrictions on the property). Mr. Hawkins stated that since the other regulations are not defined in the plans, the deed restriction is one of them. He addressed consistency with the surrounding pattern of development and nos creating an excessively large lot and stated the proposed lot merger does not fit the pattern of development in Corona del Mar. Mr. Hawkins stated that, according to the regulations all of the findings must be met and felt that at least three of them could not be met. hhark Binder stated that the reason he chose to build a house in the Village was because of its quaint nature. He felt the proposed lot merger is not consistent with the rest of the community and that the Commission should not set precedence. He asked the Commission to deny the merger in order to maintain, the integrity of the community. ;Harlan Rushing spoke ir, opposition to the proposed merger and stated that it is a monster that does not belong in the neighborhood. Page 4 of 17 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0122/2012 Andrew Patterson spoke in support of the project, addressed building helgi:fs and opined that property vatu =,s would not decrease but that if adjacent neighbors wanted to, they could build hider and if the property was sold, the new owners would build to the maximum height allowed and their views would be increased. He addressed concessions made by the applicant and felt that they present a solution for everyone concerned. Richard Ardis felt the proposed house would block the sun and that the height of the house will be con_iderably higher than exists presently. John Whelan, Attorney representing John and Judy Guida, addressed the intent of the drafters of the easements discussed. He stated none of the people speaking tonight were party to or the original people that entered i.;to those easements. Therefore, they are not in a position to define the intent but rather are spew lahng. He stated the only way to determine the intent is to read the language the originators used in developing the easements. Mr Wheian noted the language of the easements does not indicate that the adjacent neighbor views would be protected forever or indicate limitations to the height of homes. He stated the language used '.vas, "one story in height" which is what his clients are proposing. to response to Vice Chair Hillgren's question regarding why he thought the drafters of the easements limited heights of homes to one- stori,, Mr. Whelan responded that it was clearly to preserve the view. Robert Clark reported that he has lived in the City for 52 years, has seen many changes and commented on the uniqueness of Ocean. Boulevard. He opined that the parcels or. Ocean Boulevard were made larger than t;,pical lots in Corona del Mar when the original subdivision occurred. The lots along Ocean Boulevard need to be larger and that precedence has been set to allow for larger lots. He referenced the Ahmanson property as a comparable project as well as others on Ocean Boulevard. Jim Mosher referenced CEQA requirements and the exemption of this project because it qualifies for a Class V exemption. Mr. Mosher stated that in order to be in Class V, the Council would need to make a finding that the approval of this project would produce no change in density. He addressed the combined acreage of the merged lots and related density change (by a factor of 2) and stated that lot mergers in the coastal zone are not legal without approval from the Coastai Commission, Ms. Newman, Government Solutions, stated that he., client has tried to be as sensitive as possible, acknowledged the height issue, and noted that is why the self - imposed restrictions have been developed. She requested help from staff regarding the addition of language to the conditions of approval in the stipulated agreement with the larger setbacks. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Commissioner Myers agreed that this is a lot merger issue, but that it aiso relates to the planned house and how it will impact the adjacent neighbors. He acknowledged the deed restrictions run with the land, but indicated that change is inevitable and homes become obsolete. He felt that the applicant has gone out of his way to satisfy the spirit of the deed restrictions, by maintaining a low -roof line and that the home is not out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tucker welcomed new Commissioner Brown and referenced a quote from former Commissioner Ann Gifford who would say, "The job of the Planning Commissioner is to protect neighbors from the applicant and the applicant from neighbors ". He felt that is what is currently occurring. He opined the matter has nothing to do with the deed restrictions, as they were a private contract entered into by private parties. Commissioner Tucker felt this is a technical exercise and pointed out that the finding related to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare, does not refer to anyone, specifically, but is rather, a generic standard that is applied. He disagreed with Mr. Hawkins' comments regarding the definition of regulation versus private covenants and referenced findings relative to the consistency and compatibility with surrounding developments and the avoidance of an excessively large lot. He questioned whether the proposed merger causes an excessively large lot and re- iterated that it is not the City's place to get involved with private covenants. He indicated that he would have been in support of the applicant's Epplication for a lot merger without any restrictions if he had been a part of the first Planning Commission hearing, and added that he did not see the need for any restrictions. Page 5 of i 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03i2212012 Vice Chair Hillgren noted the two (2) existing properties are not in compliance with the existing code relative to the minimum lot area and width, and that with the lot merger, it would make it more compliant. He felt there is an opportunity with ,his process to develop a home that the Guida's would be comfortable with: a nd where the surrounding residents would be better served because it would give them under bet`.er terms and for a longer term of protection than what currentty exists He indicated that he would have encouraged the applicant and neighbors to work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution. Chair Toerge stated the dangers of relying on view simulations noting they are only good if they are verified. He addressed change and referenced the merger of lots in relation to the Ahmanson house and the two additional findings included by IMe City Council update to the Lot Merge' r Code in 2009. He addressed the unique configuration of the subject lots, and neighboring lots and felt that the prject is not consistent with the findings required by the current lot merger code. Commissioner Braun acknowledged the opposing viewpoints, emotional appeals, and definition of terms. He felt that precedence has already been set and agreed the issue is a technical one related to what me City has jurisdiction over. He indicated teat he probably will support the applicant's project. Motion made by Vice Chair Hillgren to adopt a resolution recommending approval by the City Council of Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 to merge the properties at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard (PA2011 -141) under common ownership with the following modifications 1) that the setbacks would be increased, as the applicant indicated, to a total of 12 feet (6 feet on each side), 2) that the height of the building would be reduced by three (3) feet through a reduction in the amount of retaining that raises the ground floor or in the reduction in the overall height of the home or a combination and 3) a reduction in the amount of floor -area ratio allowed from 1.0 to .75. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill asked whether the motion includes the recordation of a restrictive covenant to enforce and have the public at large and City be able to enforce it. Substitute Motion made by Commissioner Tucker and seconded.. by Chair Toerge, :o adopt a resolution recommending approval by the City Council of Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 to merge the properties at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard (PA2011 -141) under common ownership with the following modifications 1) that the setbacks would be increased, as the applicant indicated, to a total of 12 feet (6 feet on each side) and that enforcement of the restrictive covenant should be on the part of the City and the affected property owners. Substitute Motion r,ade by Chair Toerge to recommend the City Council deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. The substitute motion failed for lack of a second. Substitute Motion made by Commissioner Myers and seconded by Vice Chair Hillgren, and carried (3 -- 2) with Commissioner Ameri and Commissioner Kramer absent to adopt a resolution recommending approval by the City Council of Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 to merge the properties at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard (PA2011 -.41) under common ownership with the following modifications 1) that the setbacks would be increased, as the applicant indicated, to a total of twelve (12) feet (6 feet on each side), 2) that the height of the building would be reduced by three (3) feet from the voluntary height restrictions as proposed by the applicant through a reduction in the amount of retaining that raises the ground floor or a reduction in the overall height of the home or a combination and 3) a reduction in the amount of floor -area ratio allowed from 1.0 to .75 and that enforcement of the restrictive covenant should be on the par. of the City and the affected property owners (beneficiaries of the covenant). AYES: Brown, Hillgren, and Myers NOES: Toerge and Tucker ABSENT: Ameri and Kramer ABSTENSION: None. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chair Toerge called a recess at 8:57 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:11 p.m. with Commissioners Ameri and Kramer, absent. Page 6 of 17 RESOLUTION NO. 1872 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT" BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIE=S, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust requesting a lot merger and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map for properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, which are under common ownership, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar. 2. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District, and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 3. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 4. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach; California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 5. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission 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. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1872 2 of 9 9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator, 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. The applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to allow time to develop and present voluntary alternative development standards, which would be more restrictive than those allowed by the Zoning Code. 13. The Council voted unanimously to continue the hearing and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and directed the Planning Commission to make a recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the proposed alternative development standards. 14. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 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 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes to land use or increase in density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1872 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 Title 19. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area (FAI_) proposed by the applicant will limit development on the proposed merged property so that any future development will be compatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties, other properties along Ocean Boulevard, and properties throughout Corona del Mar. A -2. The lot merger would not create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding lots. A -3. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public views presently exist. A -4. The existing properties to be merged are legal building sites. A -5. The lot merger to combine the existing properties by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional lots. A -6. The proposed lot merger consists of properties that have an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or increase in density allowed on the merged property will occur. Finding B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The two properties to be rnerged, 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard are under common 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. Planning Commission Resolution No, 1872 Page 4 of 9 Facts in Support of the Finding: C -1. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing properties meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the properties would create one property, which would comply with the minirnum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. C -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single- family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. 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 the Finding: D -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and across adjacent properties is available pursuant to a recorded ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. Should the ingress and egress easement be terminated, vehicular access is possible from Ocean Boulevard at the front of the existing or merged parcels. Finding E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths up to as wide as 73 feet and area up to as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two properties will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to same of the existing lots in the surrounding area. E -2. Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, development within the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) Zoning District within Corona del Mar can have a maximum floor area limit (FAL) 1.5 times the buildable area of the Iot.The Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the lot merger includes a Condition of Approval that a Restrictive Covenant be recorded, prior to recordation of the lot merger, setting forth more restrictive standards Planning Commission Resolution No. 1872 — — - -- _. — -- -- ° — - - - - -- _ - — Page _5 of 9 for height, side setbacks, and maximum floor area for development of the merged property. The maximum floor area (FAL) will be restricted to .75 and will result in development consistent with properties in the surrounding area. Finding F. That 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 the Finding: 17-1. The existing properties currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. F -2. The proposed lot merger cornbines the existing properties into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lots or lot portions. F -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the interior lot lines between the two properties, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The allowed land use, density, and intensity on the merged property would remain the same. The proposed merged property would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of Lot Merger Application No. LM2011 -002, to merge 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, two properties under common ownership, and consisting of the following: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 Located in Corona del Mar, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This 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 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1872 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS MARCH 2.2, 2012. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, and Myers NOES: Toerge and Tucker ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Ameri and Kramer m BY Planning Commission Resolution No. 1872 Page 7 of 9 1= XHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Prior to recordation of the lot merger, a Restrictive Covenant, setting forth the alternative development standards for height, maximurn floor area, and side setbacks proposed by the applicant and described in Condition of Approval No, 3, and the "Established Grade" required by Condition of Approval No. 4 shall be recorded on the merged property with the County Recorder's Office. The Restrictive Covenant shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director. The alternative development standards shall apply to all future development of the merged properties unless terminated by written agreement by the City of Newport Beach and the owners of the properties located at 2811 and 2821 Ocean Lane. 2. Development of the merged property shall comply with all development standards required by the Zoning Code for R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) located within Corona del Mar, with the exception of the requirements for height and the maximum floor area limit (FAL) as indicated in Condition of Approval No. 3. Development of the merged property shall comply with the following alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area (FAQ: 0 Floor Area Limit fFAU: .75 (.75 x 9,488.02square feet = 7,116 Subterranean basements shall not Newport Beach Zoning Code) • Maximum height for flat roof: square feet) )e included in maximum FAIL (per - 34 percent up to 15feet 6 inches (floor of roof deck)* - 33 percent up to 15 feet (measured to top of roof) - 33 percent up to 14 feet (measured to top of roof) "Roof deck railings shall be transparent and may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code. Setbacks: - Front — 20 feet - Rear — 10 feet - Right Side — 6 feet - Left Side — 6 feet "Established Grade" for the purpose of measuring height for the principal structure shall be 67.2 NAVD88. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1872 - - -- - - -- ---- - -- - - - -- — - - - --- Page 8 of 9 5. The design of the development shall not conflict with any casements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. The existing broken and/or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 8. All existing drainage; facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 9. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements, 10. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non- standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed. 11. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 12. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 13. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 14. The existing ingress and egress and utilities easements shall be maintained. 15. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD- 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 16. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. 17. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 18. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 19. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1872 - - -- -s — -- — -- -- - - -- _ ° -- Page 9 of 9 One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 20. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 21. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices, 22. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 23. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 24. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. 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 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.