Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - EPN2004-0369 - 425 Begonia AvenueCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 12 November 9, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department Gilbert Wong 949 - 644 -3334 gwong@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A STAFF DENIAL FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER N2004 -0369 TO ALLOW A CURB CUT IN FIRST AVENUE ADJACENT TO 425 BEGONIA AVENUE OWNER: Norm Abell ISSUE: Determine if a curb opening can be permitted for a two -unit residential property that abuts an alley. RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the denial on the basis that the proposed curb opening is not allowed under the provisions of City Council Policy L -2.C. DISCUSSION: John Loomis (Thirtieth Street Architect), the Architect representing the owner (Norm Abell) of the property located at 425 Begonia Avenue in Corona del Mar, is requesting approval to construct a curb cut along the First Avenue frontage to provide parking for a new two -unit residential project (see attached letter dated September 2, 2004, Exhibit "A "). The property is at the corner of Begonia Avenue and First Avenue. The property owner proposes redevelopment with a new two -unit residence with the front unit main entrance off Begonia Avenue and the rear unit main entrance off First Avenue (see attached Exhibit "B "). Proposed vehicular access is off the alley to a two car garage and off First Avenue to a covered two car carport. Each unit will have one garage parking space via the alley and one carport parking space via a curb opening off First Avenue. Currently the property has a two -unit residential building designed with vehicular access to a two car garage via the alley with a ten -foot alley /rear yard setback (see attached Exhibit "C' and "D "). 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 SUBJECT: Appeal of a Staff Denial for Encroachment Permit Number N2004 -0369 to Allow a Curb Cut in First Avenue Adjacent to 425 Begonia Avenue November 9, 2004 Page:2 (i.e. existing structure prevents full alley access or additional covered off - street parking is being provided). The owner believes he is entitled to have a curb opening off the street, because under special circumstances an exception is allowed where there are structures that prevent full alley access. In this case, an existing 6 -inch concrete curb (on the side yard property line) and existing landscaping (i.e. two palm trees, plants, irrigation, etc.) belonging to the property (2310 First Avenue) across the alley hinders alley access (see attached photos, Exhibit "E "). Staff recognizes the existing curb /landscaping hinders alley access, but the curb is a minor hindrance and allows a car bumper to extend over\beyond the curb. In addition, the existing landscaping are not fixed structures, such as a block wall /building, and are not permitted per Variance No. 1152, which was approved on August 28, 1989 by City Council (attached Exhibit "F "). One of the conditions of Variance No. 1152 states that any landscaping /structure higher than 6- inches shall not be permitted in the five -foot side yard setback adjacent to the alley and therefore can be removed if necessary. Since the two existing palm trees are two feet and three feet back from the property line (curb face) they are not likely to be damaged from a vehicle backing out from 425 Begonia Avenue. The City's standards for alley widths and corresponding setbacks provides for a minimum of 20- feet of drive aisle for garage access. The proposed two -unit development abuts a 14 -foot wide alley and the Municipal Code requires a five -foot setback adjacent to the alley and even with the existing six -inch curb across the alley vehicular access can still be maintained. The new two -unit development proposes a two -car garage with access off the alley and a two -car carport with access off First Avenue. Two -unit developments require four parking spaces (one covered and one uncovered per each unit). Normally they are designed with access off the alley as a tandem parking concept in order to comply with the City's parking requirements. In regard to vehicular access off the alley for the proposed two -car garage versus a tandem parking design concept, there is no difference because both designs require a 5 -foot setback adjacent to the alley. Since this is a new development, the property owner an has option to implement a first floor six -foot or greater setback and/or increase the width of the garage door opening adjacent to the alley to improve vehicular access via the alley. On August 26, 2003 City Council (see attached Exhibit "G ") directed staff to revise the corner lot condition to Council Policy L -2.0 and authorized the Public Works Director to approve the following design concept/exception: The preferred design for a duplex or two -unit condo development provides for separate detached units or units attached by a common vertical wall and/or open space in accordance with applicable building codes. The resultant housing product informally subdivides the property to allow for separate units, front and back, with garage access for one unit on the alley and the second garage access on the side street to provide physically separated units that are more harmonious for the tenants /owners. The proposed new two -unit development, does not comply with new design concept/exception to the Policy as directed by Council, because both garage and carport parking are shared by both units and there's no separation between the units via a common vertical wall /open space. SUBJECT: Appeal of a Staff Denial for Encroachment Permit Number N2004 -0369 to Allow a Curb Cut in First Avenue Adjacent to 425 Begonia Avenue November 9, 2004 Page:3 In summary, staff does not support the proposed new two -unit development with a curb opening off the street because of the following: 1. One on- street public parking space will be eliminated in an area where on- street parking is inadequate. 2. The existing landscaping /curb across the alley is not enough hindrance to prevent alley access and,if necessary,.the illegal landscaping can be removed. 3. Alley access is the same for the proposed two -car garage and tandem parking design concept because both designs requires a five -foot setback adjacent to the alley. 4. Since this is a new developmentfa larger alley setback can be implemented and /or a wider garage door opening to improve alley access. 5. Does not provide additional on -site parking to comply with the exception requirements of the Council Policy L -2. 6. Does not comply with the new design concept \exception to the Policy as directed by City Council. Environmental Review: This action is categorically exempt per Section 15303. Public Notice: Public posting /notification is not required for this action. Funding Availabilitv: No City funds will be required. If approved the property owner will pay all costs for the proposed driveway approach. Prepared by: Submitted by: Gilbert Wong StepF� . Badum Associate Engineer P.I b i orks Director Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter Dated September 2, 2004 Exhibit "B" - Drawing of proposed site Exhibit "C' - Drawing of existing site Exhibit "D" - Photos of existing site Exhibit "E' - Photos of existing alley and neighbor (2310 First Avenue) Exhibit "F" - Council approval of Variance No.1152 (2310 First Avenue) Exhibit "G° - August 26, 2003 Council approval for design exception thirtieth street architects inc. September 2, 2004 Mr. Steve Badum, Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Badum: founding p)incipals john c. loomis, architect. james c. Wilson, architect principal elwood I. gullep, architect The purpose of this letter is to explain and substantiate this request for a new curb cut on 1S1 Street to provide access to required on -site parking for a proposed new, two -unit residential project in Corona del Mar. The project involves the construction of a new two car enclosed garage adjacent to the alley and two covered parking spaces arranged in a gated courtyard along 151 Street. The purpose of the curb cut is to provide access to the covered vehicular parking in the courtyard. We feel that this request is justified per the Public Works Drive Approaches standards as amended by the City Council on May 8, 2001. The "Residential Zones and Residential Uses - Special Requirements" Section C states: "Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley. An exception may be made in the case of comer lots where the street on which the curb 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 for the street will be permitted where existing structures prevent full alley access, or addition covered off - street parking is being provided. 2. The width of the curb opening shall be Iimited to one -half of the Iot depth." The circumstances regarding this specific application are: a) The property is a comer lot (northeast comer of Begonia and 151 Street). architecture historical rehabilitation planning 2821 newport blvd. newport beach caltromis 92663 phone (999) 873.2693 fax (999) 67:F6697 e-mail tsaincOaol.com a-i K:9loi+ "A" b) The proposed curb cut is located on I' Street, which is not an arterial street. c) Street frontage is available for the full depth of the lot on I' Street. d) At the adjacent property across the alley, the lots are an unusual shape, front I" Street and disrupt the normal development pattern. The result is that the use of the alley for turning motions or the jockeying of conventional tandem parking is impeded by the location of a planter with two large palm trees directly across the alley from the subject property_located in the five foot setback. This is an unusual existing condition because on most alleys in CDM, the alley setback is usually paved as a driveway apron. As a result of these existing conditions and to facilitate traffic flow, the Owner has elected to construct two additional covered spaces fronting I' Street. (Please see the attached parcel map and photographs for more information.) e) Two enclosed and two covered off- street parking spaces are being provided. The width of the request curb opening is less than one half of the lot depth. Based on these findings, we feel that this request meets Drive Approach standards and are requesting staff approval of this application. If you have questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very y yours, John C. I Principal attachments cc: Norm Abell o. s 9 � aovc 3.00.vc.ose es s, u — cvs ovu Y as r °y66 yI I f I� � aovc oa.oc.osx db e; a a� r V3 n ACACIA PACIFIC INVESTMENTS, LLC I 1 I • _ • 1 ri k, ui .L i Kid — I i 1, _ e' -_ _, ,.• - sue.' �� i � s I -r �� r;.,�, 'f ryf..o . \' ' , ... .,s .. o .� / S r R �� c � -. t: �.�• 'f1�' �. < % i'` �� ' •� .. _y_. .y � >� �1,y 6 ?6, '1� _ !W- . . �1�_"� t : Y � � ;'.��.. _ Y'.! . � y, � _, :�. I, $ ir" y .' - � . x:11.' �� ,,, :, - lK .A' �� . � / ~ �� :I!)'i.�'a, it .� \ + ' tY _ 4a) 9rJI T�.- � 'Y��SJKi'f Mi T�, � ., ���� .� �74 "JV Ot. pip r. ul IMPW At r .f .:: •V in •"i.; �^Fti�iq _ ..' t - - - ;✓ �, ' , �� >sq - glut.- . tir• "F'�'. /'� C � ' J' �'"• `� . jy .� � � sw��,."a� Gay Jam`, _`-__ �7.:.A °� iP "i •-... t' low lx RN -iZAMOMP= FINAL FIIIDI14GS AND CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCE NO. 1152 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCII, ON AUGUST 28, 1989 F�rlDillc� That there are er.ceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same District inasmuch as the subject property is comprised of the rear portions of two previous subdivided lots and that the resulting reorientation of the property has resulted in overly restrictive setbacks which excessively limit the amount of allowable gross structural area on the site. In a similar manner, the required setbacks have prohibited the applicant from providing the required volume of open space, inasmuch as a large portion of the proposed ,.pen space is located within the required 20 foot front and 10 foot rear yard netbacXs. That the grontinq of the. variance to the buildable area and open space requirement is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed project as conditioned is of comparable size and bull: to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and that the resulting open space, based on the proposed setbacks and containing one or more dimensions less than six feet, results in a greater amount of open space than is required on a typical lot within the neighborhood. That the granting of a variance to the buildable area and open space requirements will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. That the proposed encroachments; into the required front and rear yard setbacks will not under the circumstances of the casn, be detrimental to the health, safety, pence, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrir,o ntal or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general wolfaro of the City, and further that the proposed modification to cenststent with the legislntivp_ intent or Title 20 of the faunicipal Code. y Variance No. 1152 - Page 2 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any casements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. C.. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots in the area which justify the approval of a greater height for the subject building. 7. That the subject property, in conjunction with the approval of this variance, maintains sufficient buildable area so as to permit the construction of a sufficiently largo_ home within the required basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. 6. 'That the approval of the proposed variance to exceed the basic height limit will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or work;.ng in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious ° to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the -,q general welfare of the City. COf1QZTlONS 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission .ipp!:oval of this application prior to the approval of building permits. J. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Departmont. ° 4. 'That all vehicular accec!) to the property shall be from the adjacent alley. 4: 5. That a sidewalK be constricted along the First Avenue frontage and that the existing deteriorated curb and gutter be reconstructed along the First Avenue frontage. Work shall be t• completed under an encroachment permit issued by the public. works Department. G. That site distance be provided at the intersection of the 4' alley and First Avenue that Complies with Std. i10 -1.. is City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting August 26, 2003 and there is talk about placing quite a bit of equipment there. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked that Council Member Nichols be provided with previous staff reports. Mayor Bromberg suggested that the next staff report be more detailed and include past staff reports. Council Member Webb stated that, in his experiences with Mr. Yeo, he was always very responsive. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway amended his motion to continue the item. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Proctor 9. APPROVAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER N2003- 0295 TO ALLOW A CURB CUT IN SECOND AVENUE ADJACENT TO 428 ORCHID AVENUE. Council Member Nichols stated that it is natural for a front unit of a corner duplex to have a garage if possible. Motion by Council Member Nichols to 1) approve the request to allow a drive approach to a two -car garage on the southerly side of Second Avenue; and 2) direct staff to re-6se the corner lot exception to Council Policy L -2.C. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Proctor 10. NEWPORT HEIGHTS/CLIFF HAVEN NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KATZ, OKITSU & ASSOCIATES. Tony Melum, Newport Beach, stated that Margaret,Drive is part of Newport Heights and they have unique concerns. He indicated that they would like to be able to make those concerns known to the City's consultant and volunteered his wife to serve on the workshops. Motion by Moor Pro Tern Rideewav to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Katz, Okitsu & Associates of Tustin for preparing the Newport Heights /Cliff Haven Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) at a contract price of $89,990 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. INDEX EPN2003 -0295/ 928 Orchid Avenue (65) C -3532 Newport Heights/ Cliff Haven Neighborhood Trai Management Prog: (38) Volume 56 - Page 358 /C'Yvm t *r Il/_ It / AX & CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 9 August 26, 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: APPROVAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER N2003 -0295 TO ALLOW A CURB CUT IN SECOND AVENUE ADJACENT TO 428 ORCHID AVENUE OWNER: ITF, LTD. ISSUE: Determine if a curb opening can be permitted for a residential duplex property that abuts an alley. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the request to allow a drive approach to a two-car garage on the Southerly side of Second Avenue. 2. Direct staff to revise the corner lot exception to Council Policy L -2.C. DISCUSSION: Stanley J. Andrade, the Architect representing the owner (ITF, LTD) of the property located at 428 Orchid Avenue in Corona del Mar, is requesting approval to construct a curb cut along the Second Avenue frontage to provide parking for a new duplex (see attached letter dated July 22, 2003, Exhibit "A "). The property is at the corner of Orchid Avenue and Second Avenue. Currently the property has two existing units; both units are designed with vehicular access to two single car garages via two separate driveways off Second Avenue. The rear unit has a detached garage with alley access. The front unit main entrance is off Orchid Avenue and the rear unit main entrance is off Second Avenue (See attached Exhibit "B "). The property owner proposes redevelopment with two new units. The proposed front unit would have vehicular access off Second Avenue via a driveway to a two -car garage. The proposed rear unit would have vehicular access off the alley to a two -car .c Y"1A1 r "/ ".,7 DF4 Subject: Approval of Encroachment Permit Number N2003 -0295 to Allow a Curb Cut on Second Avenue Adjacent to 428 Orchid Avenue August 26, 2003 Page: 2 garage. The front unit main entrance is off Orchid Avenue and the rear unit main entrance is off Second Avenue (See attached Exhibit "C" and "D "). 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 covered off - street parking is being provided). The owner believes he is entitled to have a driveway off the street, because under special circumstances an exception is allowed where there are structures that prevent full alley access. In this case an existing power pole and hedge /vine hinders alley access (See attached letter dated August 8, 2003, Exhibit "E" and Exhibit "F" and photos). Staff recognizes the power poles /landscaping hinders alley access, but they are not fixed structures such as a block wall /building. Typically developers are expected to endure the cost of removal, relocating, and reconstruction of utilities, trees, improvements, signage, etc. as part of the cost to develop their project. In addition, landscaping is not considered a structure and it can easily be removed. Staff recognizes that the required four parking spaces (1 covered and t uncovered) per unit can be designed to access off the alley with either 4 side by side parking spaces or a tandem parking design concept. However, staff does not oppose retaining and widening one of the existing driveway curb cuts off Second Avenue. This proposal will eliminate another existing driveway curb cut off Second Avenue to allow a public parking space. The proposed units will have smaller living space with oversized garages, one common wall, and an open courtyard separating the two units. Although this development does not meet the letter of the policy, staff supports this design concept because non - tandem /larger garages are more useable and with separate garages it will provide more privacy for the tenants /owners. Although the development is not providing additional on -site parking to comply with exception requirements of the Council Policy L -2, it is improving the parking situation in the area. Staff has encountered similar corner lot projects that do not meet the letter of City Council Policy L -2, but it does meet the intent and /or provides physically separated units that are more harmonious for the tenants /owners. Staff requests direction from the City Council to revise City Council Policy L -2.0 to allow these types of developments or grant the Public Works Director the authority to approve these types of projects. Environmental Review: This action is categorically exempt per Section 15303. k14JA T "G" 304 Subject: Approval of Encroachment Permit Number N2003- D29510 Allow a Curb Cut on Second Avenue Adjacent to 428 Orchid Avenue August 26, 2003 Page: 3 Public Notice: Public posting /notification is not required for this action. Funding Availability: No City funds will be required. The property owner will pay all costs for replacement and abandonment of the driveway approach. Prepared by: Gilbert Wo g' Associate Engineer Submitted by: Stephen G. Badum Public Works Director Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter Dated July 22, 2003 and Drawing Exhibit "B" - Letter Dated August 8, 2003 Exhibit "C" - Drawing of proposed site Exhibit "D" - Drawing of existing site Exhibit "E" - Drawing of proposed (elevation view) Exhibit "F" - Drawing of proposed (plan view) Photos — Existing site FYL IAi-r "/"-" 4• AC 4. z G a O v `7 s, Z O 51 a a O O F a FI 0 Q r.r W� z° w QU w¢ �-1 Q G4 0 0 U �I.,. ._ November 9. 2004 Inventory of Corner Lots in Old Corona Del Mar In Support of Curb Cut in First Avenue Adjacent to 425 Begonia Avenue An off street parking configuration inventory of all R -2 corner lots was taken to determine the number and location of lots which have curb cuts and those that do not. The inventory data assumptions are as follows: A) Plat maps (4 pages) were used to locate all such lots bounded by Avocado Avenue and Poppy Avenue from north to south, and Fifth Avenue and Bayside Drive from east to west. B) Residences that have at least one single or double curb cut are marked in orange, residences that have no curb cuts are outlined inFbluel Commercial and single family lots are excluded as are front curb cuts to "flower" streets. C) The age of the buildings with and without curb cuts range from new construction (2004) to over fifty years old. D) Information for this inventory was collected November 5 and 8, 2004. E) It was found that the majority of all R -2 existing corner lots have curb cuts. F) Statistics of Lot Configuration: Plat Map Page Total# of Corner Lots 5 57 6 54 7 50 10 51 Total 212 =100% Lots w /Curb Cuts 39 = 68% 33 =61% 28 = 56% 26 =51% 126 = 60% IZ 1 Lots w/o Curb Cuts 18 =31% 21 = 38% 22 = 44% 25 = 49% 86 = 40% %1 'Al ll�cl lit I i [-, 61.7 Al OT® Ol b� lit I i [-, 61.7 Al a i / �Y •. °s/ / x ll OEa • MPn Q � i �N �• � a 'Y:'� 1 i eu Q. Ix su � ': •U ] +i / J' -6 U! _I l• 136 � I3I Q G Yu 91I � YJl ~ N e i a e r D. xa nlr O T4T � xa � O us 6,✓ O Gy 6/J n LL7' L. 10 O P 12x 00 Uo O l7 6// 619 Of p O 6os O O 609 Z O _ Wti •I� ~G a fo3 '@ D6 ±ql/ w -art V• 2 na O SI' L s .' vre G � VU• O yl/ k a m 3�3 N y.f i Ly • W k �c z �I 43a Mt l i lj 9J 1.e _ IN m l'J 9j3 4H ••�' ~ N e i a e r D. xa nlr O T4T � xa � O us 6,✓ O Gy 6/J n LL7' L. 10 O P 12x 00 Uo O l7 6// 619 Of p O 6os O O 609 Z O _ Wti •I� ~G a fo3 '@ D6 ±ql/ w -art V• 2 na O SI' L s .' vre G � VU• O yl/ k a m 3�3 N y.f i Ly • W k �c z �I ar M ,yam j �._._- '.j •� 9 ° � ' h/9 •� .- 6N � ]�� � °'i. 'L 5 �J b:i (b/1 0 3 pJb �I l_bJJ bot3 � J em I6J5 21 � 6m{ bJb '' az: s °> a • - :T ,.� .1/v,.rn �'i�lA.{.� •; _• ' -= 3 4' - —_ nExvs q- > � r� 191 192 95 <}i 1j4.4f:. •. e i L r3 raf ® tn9 rb r 2, v 'J :y - �"i •n :•1 : �O .rmy fs[ 5 SsJ rx Lla '.i!, ras 6IJ 'i« 'S 91- 4B f•• . i J y p yJ fl l:: V M Tz. l7 vof f -s =I- 0 l ry ID ij 4I I 'r. ? F Y N© a m N N M h ' N N •••�••' — mzn N 10 o B ® 713 O O m u � O r RJ £ o © n «. o „r - 1 L,rm, i 3na a ase a s r' n J 1 O O Ls ID ij 4I I 'r. ? F Y N© a m N N M h ' N N •••�••' — mzn N 10 o B ® 713 O O m u � O r RJ £ o © n «. o „r - 1 L,rm, i 3na a ase a s r' n J 1