The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.0_Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination_PA2016-006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 19, 2017 Meeting Agenda Item No. 5 SUBJECT: Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination (PA2016-006) 401 Heilotrope Avenue and 2820 Bayside Drive, Corona del Mar • Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 (TPM No. 2015-186) • Staff Approval No. SA2016-020 APPLICANT: Edward Sweeney and Michael Leggett OWNER: Edward Sweeney and Michael Leggett PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644-3210, Icampbell c@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a single, 2-unit condominium lot creating two separate, "fee simple" lots. The subdivision includes the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot size standard and the applicant requests approval pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 19.24.130 (Deviation from Design Standards). Included with the request is consideration of alternative setbacks pursuant to Zoning Code Section 20.30.110(C) to avoid the existing buildings from becoming noncompliant with setbacks and floor area limits. The applicant's intent is to eliminate the existing condominium plan and change the form of ownership. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find project approval exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 and Staff Approval No. SA2016-020 (Attachment PC1). 1 V� QP �P Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 2 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property fronts Bayside Park, a dedicated street right-of-way, and Heliotrope Avenue. The site is developed with two, detached condominium units. Development of the condominiums was completed within the past 2 years. The lot is comprised of lots 1 and 3 of the original Corona del Mar (CdM) subdivision and is approximately 7,209 square feet in total area. The units are separated by approximately 10 feet and function independently. The applicant requested permission to install enhanced landscaping in the Bayside Drive right-of-way abutting the project site. The City approved the request subject to an encroachment agreement and the applicant now has the ongoing maintenance responsibility. VICINITY MAP K"�A _ F 3 Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 3 One unit (401 Heliotrope Avenue) takes access from the street and the rear unit (2820 Bayside Drive) takes access from a shared driveway through Bayside Park from Heliotrope Avenue. The driveway is shared with one unit to the west and pedestrians who visit Bayside Park. A common retaining wall extends along the northeast property line of both proposed lots. Utilities are separate and would not cross the proposed property line that would separate the lots. A larger scale and an oblique air photo of the project site are attached (Attachment PC2). Land use designations, zoning and surrounding uses are shown below. GENERAL PLAN & LCP ZONING 6pe >' qD�'e , ♦ 4r btb a 4' CD�7' O,.r. b�• t ' 4q 5p 0' s .� '$9i b � 41, � br � bo,• v�p $Aa° 9v bi o bl°,O kv yi 92 b, 9t 9 40 q4 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CURRENT USE Local Coastal Program ON-SITE RT R-2 Residential Two-Unit Residential Two-Unit Residential NORTH RT R-2 Residential SOUTH RT R-2 Bayside Park and Residential EAST I RT R-2 I Residential WEST I RT R-2 Residential Project Description The applicant requests the approval of a tentative parcel map to split the lot between the two units while maintaining the 10-foot separation between the buildings. The applicant also requests alternative setbacks to be applied to avoid creating 4 Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 4 noncompliant conditions with regards to setbacks and floor area. The applicant's justification and exhibits depicting existing structures, proposed setbacks, and tentative parcel map are attached (Attachment PC3). DISCUSSION Analysis Land Use and Zoning The General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program designate the site RT (Two-unit residential) and R-2 (Two-unit residential) allowing up to two units per lot. The existing two-unit condominium development conforms to the RT land use categories and R-2 zoning district from the perspective of land use. General Plan Policy LU 4.2 "prohibits new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be re- subdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and Multiple Unit Residential land use categories." Subdividing the property as requested would create two lots and each lot could be developed with a 2-unit structure pursuant to the current land use designations and zoning. The potential increase in density from two units to four units would not exceed what the General Plan would permit due to the fact that the existing lot is the result of combining two original lots that could be separated and developed if the existing buildings were demolished. The likelihood of redevelopment of the site with two duplexes based upon the original or proposed lot configuration is considered quite low due to the recent investment to construct the existing units, the physical improvements, and parking requirements for duplexes. The project would not result in any encroachment or improvements within Bayside Park so public access will be remain unaffected. Zoning and Subdivision Code Compliance A. Reduced Lot Size Newly created R-2 lots are required to be a minimum of 5,000 square feet for interior lots and 6,000 square feet for a corner lots. The existing lot and proposed lots are not considered corner lots because of the 90-foot wide parkway in Bayside Drive (Bayside Park). The Zoning Code, Section 20.18.030, Table 2-3, Footnote (2) allows smaller lots to be created provided they are not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face in accordance with the Subdivision Code (Title 19). The original lots along 5 Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 5 the east side of Heliotrope Avenue were 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep and 3,540 square feet in area. The proposed lots are 3,639 square feet and 3,571 square feet and comply with the footnote. The proposed lots meet width standard for interior lots as they are approximately 65 and 57 feet wide. Approval of the parcel map with the reduced lot sizes can be approved pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.130 (Deviation from Design Standards). Section 19.24.130(A) the Planning Commission must determine that "such modified designs are specifically permitted pursuant to the provisions of planned community, planned residential development, specific plan or other regulations set forth in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)." As noted, Zoning Code Section 20.18.030, Table 2-3, Footnote (2) 19.24.130 allows for the reduced size lots because they are not smaller than the 3,540 square foot original underlying lots along the block face. To approve the tentative parcel map, the Planning Commission must make the following findings pursuant to Section 19.24.130(C) makes all of the following findings: 1. The requested deviation(s) will create a land plan or development design equal or superior to that under the baseline design standards in this chapter, The subdivision code requires lots to meet standards of the Zoning Code, and therefore, these standards are the baseline design standard. Lots would need to be 50 and 60 feet wide by 100 feet deep to fully comply with current standards. Corona del Mar was subdivided before the current standards and the most common lot is rectangular, 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep, and 3,540 square feet in area. Variations do exist due to street geometry and topography. Additionally, numerous lots have been divided and recombined in various ways over the years creating lots of varying widths and sizes. More common dimensions are 45' x 118' and 60' x 118'. The predominant lot design remains nonconforming to the baseline design standard. Lastly, there are several examples where two or three original lots were combined and resubdivided creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The existing lot pattern in the vicinity is shown in Attachment PC4. 2. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local vehicular circulation network; The subdivision would not change the density or decrease the carrying capacity of local streets during the lifespan of the existing units. In the future, the two lots could be redeveloped or converted to two duplexes thereby increasing the density by two units over the current condition. Traffic attributable to two additional units would have a negligible effect on the carrying capacity of the local circulation network. 3. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact pedestrian circulation; The subdivision would not change the density during the lifespan of the existing units. The potential future increase in density of two units should not affect 0 Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 6 pedestrian traffic along Heliotrope Avenue. If the future units were to take access from Bayside Drive, it could affect pedestrian circulation. Future access could be limited to Heliotrope Avenue or the driveway could be separated from pedestrians by modifications to the driveway if that future project were determined to be detrimental. The City controls the time place and manner of the use of the public right-of-way through the development review and encroachment agreement process. Staff does not foresee a negative impact to the pedestrian circulation under these future and limited circumstances. 4. The resulting subdivision will be compatible with the pattern of surrounding subdivisions; The proposed subdivision is based upon the existing development of the site that does not appear to be detrimental. Additionally, there are several examples where two or three original CdM lots were combined and resubdivided creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. 5. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and will conform to the Subdivision Map Act and all other provisions of this Subdivision Code; and The General Plan designates the property for a two-family development and the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 4.2 as noted previously. The tentative parcel map has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and no public improvements are required as all existing public improvements have been completed and dedications are required. With the approval of a deviation to the design standard related to lot size, the parcel map will conform to the Subdivision Map Act and Subdivision Code. The final map will be reviewed by the City Engineer and County Surveyor prior to recordation to ensure compliance with all technical requirements for the preparation of a parcel map. 6. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will not be materially detrimental to the residents or tenants of the proposed subdivision or surrounding properties, nor to public health or safety. The resulting lot configuration is similar to other reoriented lots that front Bayside Drive and reflects the current development. No new construction is planned given the recent construction of the structures, no subdivision improvements are required, and no changes to existing pedestrian or vehicular access would occur. B. Setbacks and Floor Area Limit The subdivision would create conflicts between the existing development and minimum setbacks and the maximum allowed floor area unless reduced setbacks are established. The two existing condominiums were developed at the maximum allowable floor area 7 Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 7 and to minimum allowed setbacks based upon the existing lot configuration. If the subdivision is approved, setback areas change based upon Zoning Code definitions and there would be a new lot line separating the two units. The combination of factors increases the required setback areas, reduces the buildable area of the lot, and results in a decreased maximum allowed floor area to the point that the existing structures would be non-compliant. NBMC Section 20.30.110.0 provides, "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 Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties." The Municipal Code does not specify any required findings to establish alternative setback areas. The Director has referred this determination to the Planning Commission for review and action and has provided notice to the public in accordance with the Municipal Code. For the most part, proposed setbacks maintain existing conditions and would not affect the abutting residential properties and would not reduce the setback to Heliotrope Avenue. The proposed 3-foot setback to the common lot line between the two buildings would be the minimum to ensure compliance with the Building Code. The existing structures would not need to be modified and the openings in the buildings can remain. Tables 1 and 2 below show the existing and proposed lots in comparison to standards. Table 1: Existing Lot Lot Area 7,209 square feet sf 5,000 sf minimum Lot Width 61 feet (average) 50 feet minimum Setbacks Front 15 feet to Heliotrope 15 feet required Side 4 feet to north 4 feet required Side 4 feet to Bayside 4 feet required) Rear 5 feet to aIle 5 feet required) Buildable Area 5,261 sf lot area minus setback areas Maximum Gross Floor Area GFA 7,891.5 sf 1.5 times buildable area Total Existing GFA 7,891 sf g Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 8 Table 2: Proposed Lots Parcel 7 2820 Bayside) Parcel 2 401 Heliotrope Lot Area 3,638 sf 5,000 sf required) 3,570sf 5,000 sf required) Lot Width 65 feet (approx.) 57 feet (approx.) Setbacks Front 0 feet to Bayside Dr. 15 feet to Heliotrope 20 feet required 15 feet required Side 5 feet to alley 4 feet to north 4 feet required) 4 feet required) Side 3 feet to east 0 feet to Bayside Dr. 4 feet required) 4 feet required) Rear 4 feet to north 3 feet to west 10 feet required) 10 feet required) Buildable Area 2,923 sf 2,387 sf Maximum GFA 4,384 sf 3,580 sf Total Existing GFA 4,328 sf 56 sf below limit 3,563 sf 17 sf below limit Sixteen lots within nearby six blocks along Bayside Drive are the result of combining two or three lots creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The resulting development pattern created takes better advantage of the existing topography allowing homes to step down the slope perpendicular to the topography. The application of standard setbacks to 2820 Bayside Drive would require a 20-foot setback to Bayside Drive and 10-foot rear setback to the north resulting in a 30-foot buildable lot depth. These setbacks and reduced buildable area is inconsistent with typical 4-foot setbacks for nearby reoriented lots along Bayside Drive allowing 50 or more feet of buildable lot depth. The proposed 3-foot east side setback ensures compliance with the Building Code and the 5-foot west side (alley) setback would remain unchanged from the existing condition. The application of standard setbacks to 401 Heliotrope Avenue would require a 10-foot rear setback opposite the street, which is inconsistent with the 7-foot setback that would be provided. The three other setbacks for this lot would remain unchanged. The zero setbacks to Bayside Drive are unusual and necessary to increase the buildable area and maximum allowable floor area to avoid the buildings being noncompliant. It should be noted that the enclosed building areas could not be extended into reduced setback area given that the Building Code requires a minimum 3-foot setback when a building has openings. The open space of Bayside Park offsets the decreased setback area and the likelihood of any public buildings or structures in proximity to the lots is remote. Despite these factors, staff has included a condition of approval that would prohibit expanding the building into the Bayside Drive setback area. Additionally, staff has included a condition of approval that would prohibit expanding the buildings into the 10 foot area between the buildings. Lastly, with the reorientation of the 9 Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 9 2820 Bayside Drive, the existing alley setback is changed from a rear setback. These conditions will maintain the existing conditions, which is the intent of the current owners, thereby avoiding potential detrimental conditions to abutting properties and Bayside Park. Table 3 below shows a comparison of the maximum floor area to lot area ratios of the existing lot, the proposed lots, and a typical lot CDM lot with a 15-foot front yard setback. Table 3 Floor Area Comparison Typical Lot Current Lot Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Lot Area 3,540 sf 7,209 sf 3,703 sf 3,485 sf Buildable Area 2,232 sf 5,261 sf 2,923 sf 2,387 sf Maximum GFA 3,348 sf 7,891 sf 4,384 sf 3,580 sf Floor Area to Lot Area Ratio 0.946 1.098 1.184 1.027 Although the resulting floor area to lot area ratio is higher than a typical lot, it is not significantly different than the existing condition. Based upon the presence of reoriented lots in the area, the existing development and conditions of approval, the application of NBMC Section 20.30.110.0 can be applied and granting the alternative setbacks would not prove detrimental. Summary The project is consistent with the General Plan, and more specifically Land Use Element Policy LU 4.2. The required findings for the reduced lot size can be supported as well as the general findings for the approval of a tentative parcel map. The alternative setbacks are necessary to comply with setback and floor area standards. The suggested conditions of approval will maintain existing development that has not proven detrimental to the community. The net result of project approval is the elimination of the existing condominium plan to a separate "fee simple" ownership. Alternatives Alternative actions the Planning Commission may consider include: 1) approving different setbacks than requested; however, the result could leave one or both residences noncompliant to the floor area limits depending upon the setbacks identified; or 2) project denial, which would maintain the status quo, avoid noncompliance with development standards, and eliminates the potential of converting the units into duplexes in the future. Staff has prepared a resolution for project denial for consideration (Attachment PC5). 10 Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setback Determination Planning Commission, January 19, 2017 Page 10 Environmental Review Staff recommends the Planning Commission find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed subdivision and proposed alternative setbacks as conditioned will only change the form of ownership of the existing units and will not result in new construction or increased density compared to the General Plan. 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: W k e,,�� - &�r"**4 JaRYes Campbell, F5rincipal Pla ner *rn isnesl i,r ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Project Approval PC 2 Air Photos of Project Site PC 3 Project Description, Exhibits and Tentative Parcel Map PC 4 Map of Lots in Vicinity of Project PC 5 Draft Resolution to Deny 11 V� QP �P 2� Attachment PC1 Draft Resolution for Project Approval 13 V� QP �P 2� RESOLUTION NO. ### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING NEWPORT PARCEL MAP NO. NP2016-001 AND STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2016-020 TO SUBDIVIDE A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOT AND ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE SETBACKS FOR 401 HELIOTROPE AVENUE AND 2820 BAYSIDE DRIVE (PA2016-006) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Edward Sweeney and Michael Leggett, Inc., with respect to property located at 401 Heliotrope Avenue and 2820 Bayside Drive and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2013-176. 2. The applicant proposes a tentative parcel map to, subdivide a single, 2-unit condominium lot creating two separate, "fee simple" lots. 'fhe subdivision includes the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot size standard and the applicant request approval pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 19.24.130 (Deviation from Design Standards). 3. The application also includes a request to establish alternative setbacks for the lots pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) to avoid the existing buildings from becoming noncompliant with setbacks and floor area limits. 4. The subject property is designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) by Land Use Element of the General Plan. The site is in the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District. 5. The subject property is entirely located within the coastal zone and designated RT (Two- Unit Residential) by the Newport Beach Certified Local Coastal Program. 6. A public hearing was held on January 19, 2017, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15315 under Class 1 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed subdivision and proposed alternative setbacks as conditioned will only change the form of ownership of the existing units 15 Resolution No. ### Page 2 of 13 and will not result in new construction or increased density compared to the General Plan. 2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.24.130(A) (Deviation from Design Standards), the Planning Commission finds: Finding: A. The modified designs are specifically permitted pursuant to the provisions of planned community, planned residential development, specific plan or other regulations set forth in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The requested modified design is a reduced lot size. Newly created R-2 lots are required to be a minimum of 5,000 square feet for interior lots and 6,000 square feet for a corner lots. The existing lot and proposed lots are not considered corner lots because of the 90-foot wide parkway in Bayside Drive (Bayside Park). 2. Zoning Code, Section 20.18.030, Table 2-3, Footnote (2) allows smaller lots to be created provided they are not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face. 3. The original lots along the east side of Heliotrope Avenue were 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep and 3,540 square feet in area established by the 1904 subdivision map of Corona del Mar. The proposed lots are 3,639 square feet and 3,571 square feet and comply would comply with Zoning Code, Section 20.18.030, Table 2-3, Footnote (2). In accordance with NBMC Section 19.24.130(C) (Deviation from Design Standards), the Planning Commission finds: Finding: B. The requested deviation(s) will create a land plan or development design equal or superior to that under the baseline design standards in this chapter; 10 Resolution No. ### Page 3 of 13 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The baseline design standard pursuant to the Zoning Code is 5,000 square feet and 50 feet wide. Corona del Mar was subdivided before the current standards and the most common lot is rectangular, 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep, and 3,540 square feet in area. Variations do exist due to street geometry and topography. 2. Numerous lots in Corona del Mar have been divided and recombined in various ways over the years creating lots of varying widths and sizes. More common dimensions are 45' x 118' and 60' x 118'. The predominant lot design remains nonconforming to the baseline design standard. 3. Sixteen lots within six blocks along Bayside Drive are the result of combining two or three lots creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The resulting development created takes better advantage of the existing topography allowing homes to step down the slope perpendicular to the topography. Finding: C. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local vehicular circulation network; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subdivision would not change the density or decrease the carrying capacity of local streets during the lifespan of the existing units. In the future, the two lots could be redeveloped or converted to two duplexes thereby increasing the density by two units over the current condition. 2. Traffic attributable to two additional units would have a negligible effect on the carrying capacity of the local circulation network. Finding: D. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact pedestrian circulation; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subdivision would not change the density during the lifespan of the existing units. The potential future increase in density of two units should not affect pedestrian traffic along Heliotrope Avenue. If the future units were to take access from Bayside Drive, it could affect pedestrian circulation; however, future access could be limited to Heliotrope Avenue or the driveway could be separated from pedestrians by modifications to the driveway if that future project were determined to be detrimental. 2. The City controls the time place and manner of the use of the public right-of-way through the development review and encroachment agreement process. Negative 17 Resolution No. ### Page 4 of 13 affects to the pedestrian circulation under these limited and future circumstances can be avoided if it were determined to be a significant and detrimental impact. Findinq: E. The resulting subdivision will be compatible with the pattern of surrounding subdivisions; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed subdivision is based upon the existing development of the site that has not proven to be detrimental. 2. Sixteen lots within six blocks along Bayside Drive are the result of combining two or three lots creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The resulting development pattern created takes better advantage of the existing topography allowing homes to step down the slope perpendicular to the topography. Finding: F. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and will conform to the Subdivision Map Act and all other provisions of this Subdivision Code; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The General Plan designates the site RT (Two-unit residential) allowing up to two units per lot. The subdivision results in the creation of single family development on each lot, which is allowed in the RT land use category. If the site were redeveloped in the future, duplex development could result consistent with the RT land use category. 2. The subdivision is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 4.2 without a General Plan Amendment as the existing lot was originally two RT lots that were legally merged pursuant to a parcel map. Subdividing the property creates two lots and each lot could be developed with a 2-unit structure pursuant to the RT land use category and R-2 zoning designation. Therefore, the resulting density would not exceed what the General Plan would permit if the existing buildings were demolished and the site redeveloped in accordance with the original underlying lots. 3. The site is not located within a specific plan area. 4. The Subdivision Map Act requires subdivisions to be consistent with the General Plan, and local subdivision regulations. The subdivision would create lots that do not meet the minimum lot size; however, deviations from lot design standards can be considered pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.130 (Deviation from Design Standards) provided specific findings can be met. The required determination and findings pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.130 are supported by facts as set forth in this 28 Resolution No. ### Page 5 of 13 Resolution. The findings and facts in support of Findings A and B above are incorporated by reference Finding: G. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will not be materially detrimental to the residents or tenants of the proposed subdivision or surrounding properties, nor to public health or safety. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The resulting lot configuration is similar to other reoriented lots that front Bayside Drive and reflects the current development. 2. No new construction is planned given the recent ccfnstruction of the structures, no subdivision improvements are required, and no,, anges to existing pedestrian or vehicular access would occur. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070(A) squired Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the Planning Commission finds: Finding: H. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: Facts in support of Finding E are restated and incorporated by reference. Finding: 1. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The lot is 7,209 square feet and is currently developed with two condominium units that fully conform to the R-2 zone development standards. The subdivision would result in two single family lots based upon the current condition; however, each lot could be redeveloped in the future with a duplex provided they met applicable zoning standards including required parking. 2. The subject property is accessible from Heliotrope Avenue and Bayside Drive and an alley at the rear opposite Heliotrope Avenue. The site is served by existing utilities from the alley and Bayside Drive. 19 Resolution No. ### Page 6 of 13 Finding: J. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The site is currently developed with a two-unit condominium constructed in 2015 and all necessary public improvements and utilities are currently in place to support the development. The subdivision is not likely to lead to new construction during the economic life of the current structures. 2. The property is developed and is located in an urbanized area and the lot does not contain any sensitive vegetation or habitat. Bayside Park abuts the project site and is comprised of ornamental landscaping. 3. The project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed subdivision and proposed alternative setbacks as conditioned will only change the form of ownership of the existing units and will not result in new construction or increased density compared to the General Plan. Future redevelopment or conversion of the existing units creating duplexes would also be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 or 15303 (New construction) given the limited number of units in an urbanized area. Finding: K. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for residential purposes (single-family or possibly future duplex development) allowed by the RT (Two-family) land use category of the General Plan. 2. All improvements associated with the project comply with required Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. 20 Resolution No. ### Page 7 of 13 3. Public improvements are not required give that all necessary public improvements are already in place. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with. Finding: L. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: The subdivision and design of development not conflict iith easements acquired by the public at large, for access through r u of property within the proposed development, because there are no public ea s located on the property. Finding: M. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act because, the subject property is not designated or used for agricultural purposes. 2. The site, developed for residential use, is located within a Zoning District that permits residential uses. Finding: N. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. 21 Resolution No. ### Page 8 of 13 1. California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 was repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a "land project" as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land nor is it located within the boundaries of a specific plan. Finding: O. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. 2. The design of the proposed subdivision provides a southern solar exposure for both lots. 3. The City of Newport Beach has not adopted an ordinance in accordance with Section 66475.3 Subdivision Map Act to require solar access easements; therefore Section 66475.3 is not applicable. Finding: P. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subdivision would not change the density of development during the economic life of the existing units constructed in 2015. 2. The subdivision is for residential purposes and would allow for an increase in density from two units to four units with redevelopment in the future consistent with applicable land use regulations. Therefore, the Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed condominiums will not affect the City in meeting its regional housing need. 22 Resolution No. ### Page 9 of 13 Finding: Q. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Findinq: 1. The subdivision is for residential purposes and not commercial or industrial development. The subdivision developed and designed such that wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system complies with applicable City standards and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. Finding: R. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of chapter three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is entirely within the Coastal Zone and the site is designated RT (Two-unit Residential) and allows single-family or duplex development. The site is not located along the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean or Newport Harbor where public access would be otherwise required. The site is located abutting Bayside Park, which is within the dedicated public right-of-way of Bayside Park. The subdivision will not directly lead to new construction within the economic life of the existing units built in 2015, therefore, no significant effect upon access to Bayside Park is anticipated. 2. The subdivision could allow conversion of the existing single—family units or redevelopment with duplexes entirely within the existing project boundaries provided they met all standards of the R-2 zoning district. In this way, no significant effect to Bayside Park or public access thereto would result with approval of the subdivision. The Municipal Code does not set forth any required findings for the approval of Alternative Setbacks pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.110(C). The Planning Commission finds: Finding: S. The design and orientation of the existing lot and the application of the setback areas are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Sixteen lots within six blocks along Bayside Drive are the result of combining two or three lots creating square or rectangular lots perpendicular to Bayside Drive. The 23 Resolution No. ### Page 10 of 13 resulting development pattern created takes better advantage of the existing topography allowing homes to step down the slope perpendicular to the topography. 2. The application of standard setbacks to 2820 Bayside Drive would require a 20-foot setback to Bayside Drive and 10-foot rear setback to the north resulting in a 30-foot buildable lot depth. These setbacks and reduced buildable area are inconsistent with typical 4-foot setbacks for nearby reoriented lots along Bayside Drive allowing 50 or more feet of buildable lot depth. The proposed 3-foot east side setback ensures compliance with the Building Code and the 5-foot west side (alley) setback would remain unchanged from the existing condition. 3. The application of standard setbacks to 401 Heliotrope Avenue would require a 10-foot rear setback opposite the street, which is inconsistent with the 7-foot setback that would be provided. The three other setbacks for this lot would remain unchanged. 4. The application of the alternative setbacks is nesary to ensure that the existing buildings comply with setback and floor area/ dations with the approval of the proposed subdivision. Finding: T. The alternative setbacks identified otlojetrimental to the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The alternative setbacks identified reflect existing development that is compatible with the area. 2. Conditions of approval would prohibit the buildings from expanding or extending the buildings into the zero-foot Bayside Drive setback or the 10-foot separation between the existing buildings to maintain existing building locations and massing and to maintain a separation to Bayside Park. 3. The resulting floor area to lot area ratio of 1.027 and 1.184 is a nominal change from the current 1.098 for the un-subdivided. The ratio is also comparable to the ratio that a typical CdM lot that would provide (0.946) with a 15-foot front yard setback. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 (PA2016-006) subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 24 Resolution No. ### Page 11 of 13 2. The approval of the tentative parcel map shall become final and effective 10 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Chapter 19.12 (Tentative Map Review). 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Staff Approval No. SA 2016-020 establishing alternative setbacks for the lots in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) as follows: Parcell Parcel (2820 Bayside Dr.) (401 Heliotrope Ave.) Front 0 feet to Bayside 15 feet to Heliotrope Side 5 feet to alley 4 feet to north Side 3 feet to east 0 feet to Bayside Dr. Rear 4 feet to north 3 feet to west 4. The approval of the alternative setbacks in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the NBMC Chapter 20.26 (Appeals or Calls for Review). AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 2.� Resolution No. ### Page 12 of 13 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived, modified or limited by the conditions of approval. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 4. Subsequent to the recordation of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall apply for a building permit for both 401 Heliotrope Avenue and 2820 Bayside Drive for a description change of from 'condominium" to single family residential. The applicant is also responsible for filing any necessary documents with the California Bureau of Real Estate and the County of Orange to document the elimination of any condominium plan or condominium status. 5. After recordation of the final parcel map and prior to the issuance of building permits for the description change pursuant to Condition 4, an updated encroachment agreement shall be recorded against the new lots for the existing private improvements/landscaping within the abutting rights-of-way. All applicable fees for the processing and recordation of the agreement shall be paid by the applicant. 6. The existing units shall not be expanded or extended into the zero-foot setback area along Bayside Drive. 7. The existing units shall not be expanded or extended into the 10-foot area that separates the two existing units. 8. A parcel map shall be recorded. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's computer-aided design and drafting standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 9. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 20 Resolution No. ### Page 13 of 13 10. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 11. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Sweeney-Leggett Lot Split and Alternative Setbacks including, but not limited to, Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 and Staff Approval No. SA 2016-020 (PA2016-006). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 27 V� QP �P �g Attachment PC2 Air Photos of Project Site 29 V� QP �P 30 2 � 110 � � I O 4 �q ti a 'y. d'' 1 2820 7 � y _ 9 'Y Bayside ,max Pack OQ 1 i B4Y SIpF • 297 w Newport Beach Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided,however,The City of GIS Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to �� 'rogr any results obtained in its use. ° m 0 40 80 _ Imagery: 2009-2013 photos provided by Eagle Feet Imaging www.eagieaerial.com tznizots 31 . � ry rN AV • C 441. 41 :Y u� ` 41 �j 1 0 ti i Attachment PC3 Project Description, Exhibits and Tentative Parcel Map 33 V� QP �P 31{ November 21, 2016 '�ece;vEo oy James Campbell, Sr. Planner COMMUNITY City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Cener Drive NOV 2 2 2016 Newport Beach, CA 92660 n . DEVELOPMENT .Z RE: Setback Determination Request N�wPOR� 401 Heliotrope and 2820 Bayside Dear Jim: We wish to amend our Parcel Map Application with the enclosed proposed lot lines and setbacks. Specifically, we would request that the City approve the Parcel Map Application with two lots and the following setbacks. 1. The setback along Heliotrope of 15 feet is to remain. - 2. The setback along the alley of 5 feet is to remain. 3. The setback between 401 Heliotrope, 2820 Bayside and 405 Heliotrope of 4 feet is to remain. 4. The setback between 401 Heliotrope and 2820 Bayside to be 3 feet. The overall distance between the structures exceeds .10 feet and there is no conflict with openings and/or overhangs/fascia lines. 5. The setback between 401 Heliotrope and 2820 Bayside to be reduced to 0. The justification for requesting a 0 foot setback is a result of the natural open space that occurs between the Bayside right-of-way and the subject property. This natural separation consists of a privately maintained landscape area that measures between 17.5 feet and 22 feet to the driveway access that is shared with 400 Goldenrod. This area creates a natural setback from any pedestrian and/or public use. The uniqueness of this development and ample open space far exceeds the 3 foot minimum side yard setback that is the predominant condition in Corona del Mar. Respectfully submitted, Edward Sweeney 35 i 4 i �•-•-•-•- •-•-•-•-•-•-•-N•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•- z-•-•-•-•- 0 0 AQ m >` ALLEY n H 1 � 1 N i. uunzc�c� ! I I 1 ` c � i q ! I ! 0 � if D13 > �>> N D� 1 n AT aaN j m A i I z i p - 0 o ( ON 1 NO I rn -( p —1 ii W yQ ❑ � s {! m i zm I oD A I Z >m 1 j- v-( 1 Nr�* O aa$ Iw D 5 I cd 0 V (WA (4 ! p xZ i > wok N(4 � i Zo GJOA oN^a' II V <z yZ -------- —_---- ________ - i C1 N I N j54.00• j b•---•-•---•-•---•---•--- --------------------------- HELIOTROPE 3o SHEET 1 OF 1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2015-186 JANUARY 2016 ALLEY SITE ADDRESS 99.50 120'20 401 HELIOTROPE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 98.00 ^ - (APN: 459-172-16) N40°32'44"E 68.16' - ---- PARCEL 1 1 ) x650 116.1 r PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-176 99.51 P.M.B. 381/43-45 / 119.65 i 99.51 - THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS 118.00 SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE 99.40 FF=100.00' i OF CALIFORNIA, AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 3w ° ' PARCEL 1 101, 0.085 AC PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-176, IN a O 99.91 EXISTING o THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF v+ Q HOUSE i C6 ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN ON Qi A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 381, PAGES 43 99'17 I 1 THROUGH 45 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS IN °35'31"E 39.11' N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF 93 ) N40°3531 E 99.80 N SAID COUNTY. 40 N04-2429"W 4.63' 100.41 Z OWNER/DEVELOPER: EDWARD SWEENEY, A SINGLE MAN AND i KATHLEEN T, MAHONEY TRUSTEE OF THE 100.00 PARCEL 2 ® z a MAHONEY TRUST, U/A DTD 07/07/2006, AS THEIR 0.080 ACw INTERESTS APPEAR OF RECORD. 0 100.41 F=100.50 o N M EXISTING �o\ m o HOUSE w n 100.33 99.78 --�'y oFS NO'PL LANA UO w ��j� oOMINIOk SG V)z 0: to pG 95.77 96.93 s, mGO v SCALE = 1" = 20' 8516 A . -_- Exp. 12/31/16 N4003235"E 54.00' sT P 99.33 9TF OF CA1-�F PREPARED BY: (93.22)/ 95.59 97.26 N 99.97 - —Tc PAUL D. CRAFT, P.L.S. 8516 HELIOTROPE AVENUE LICENSE EXPIRES 12/31/16 LAND $URVOYINO HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92646 PHONE:(714)486.5006 FAX:(714)3�3Z444O APEXLSINCCa GMAIL.COM / V� QP �P 3g Attachment PC4 Map of Lots in Vicinity of Project 39 V� QP �P �o sect�; ? ark p , • d C °° a 9`F a �, q a ay; �``:'i � °��° ts. •.v'°,a. 'l.QS,, s o.. p?o �Qr p u' c 6 S"� +a 0 -` •1;° � P ° Pe 'a ry ' .I ♦ ' J'f , ' °P P�� a a !\ �pF N �7` pip v,�°'% •°? P f'1 11 PJ ,� , ''jrye b ua' / J� •/,'• 4 �Q 14 - P eqAl 9 jF�'° PJ < p °• " ° ;� by Newport Beach Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided,however,The City of GIS Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to �� 'rogr any results obtained in its use. ° m 0 200 400 _ Imagery: 2009-2013 photos provided by Eagle Feet Imaging www.eagieaerial.com 1/1 012017 ,µI 11 V� QP �P Attachment PC5 Draft Resolution to Deny 4S V� QP �P RESOLUTION NO. ### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING NEWPORT PARCEL MAP NO. NP2016-001 AND DENYING STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2016-020 TO SUBDIVIDE A TWO- UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOT AND ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE SETBACKS FOR 401 HELIOTROPE AVENUE AND 2820 BAYSIDE DRIVE (PA2016-006) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Edward Sweeney and Michael Leggett, Inc., with respect to property located at 401 Heliotrope Avenue and 2820 Bayside Drive and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2013-176. 2. The applicant proposes a tentative parcel map to Ab iivide a single, 2-unit condominium lot creating two separate, "fee simple" lots. The subdivision includes the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot size standard and the applicant request approval pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 19.24.130 (Deviation from Design Standards). 3. The application also includes a request to establish alternative setbacks for the lots pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) to avoid the existing buildings from becoming noncompliant with setbacks and floor area limits. 4. The subject property is designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) by Land Use Element of the General Plan. The site is in the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District. 5. The subject property is entirely located within the coastal zone and designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) by the Newport Beach Certified Local Coastal Program. 6. A public hearing was held on January 19, 2017, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 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. 45 Resolution No. ### Page 2 of 4 SECTION 3. FINDINGS. A. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.24.130(C), the Planning Commission was unable to make the following finding(s) in support of the requested deviation for lot size: 1. "The requested deviation(s) will create a land plan or development design equal or superior to that under the baseline design standards in this chapter." a) The baseline lot size standard of the Municipal Code for interior R-2 (Two- Unit Residential) lots is 5,000 square feet. The existing 7,209 square foot lot, developed with a two-unit condominium, conforms to the minimum lot area standard. The existing lot and development also conforms with regards to land use and density standards. The proposed lots would be less than the baseline standard and would not be equal or superior to a 5,000 square foot lot. b) The reduced lot area as part of the subdivision would allow the two existing single family buildings to be converted to or replaced with duplexes potentially allowing a net increase of up to 2 units. Larger and conforming lots can better accommodate the increased density by allowing area for required parking, setbacks and living area. The reduced-size lots might not be able to accommodate the additional density the R-2 Zoning District would allow by right and could lead to future requests for variances to development standards. 2. "The deviation(s) will not negatively impact pedestrian circulation" The creation of two R-2 zoned lots with the request to deviate from lot size could allow a future increase in density of up to two units. The westerly lot (2820 Bayside Drive) takes access from a driveway in Bayside Drive that is shared with pedestrians within the Bayside Drive parkway (Bayside Park). The possibility to increase the number of units and increase vehicular use of the driveway could negatively impact the public's use of the driveway by pedestrians in the future. B. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070(A) (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the Planning Commission was unable to make the following finding(s) in support the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map: 1. "That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development that could occur in the future." 2. "The resulting subdivision design and improvements will not be materially detrimental to the residents or tenants of the proposed subdivision or surrounding properties, nor to public health or safety." 40 Resolution No. ### Page 3 of 4 a) The site is of limited size and is suitable for development with two units based upon the existing development of the site with two units. The subdivision would permit the future development of two, duplexes potentially creating increased vehicular use of the Bayside Drive parkway. b) The facts in support of Finding A are restated and incorporated by reference. 3. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and will conform to the Subdivision Map Act and all other provisions of this Subdivision Code; and The subdivision includes a request to deviate from the minimum lot size. Based upon facts in support of Finding A, the Planning Commission cannot make the required findings pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.130. Therefore, the subdivision is not consistent with Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Code). C. The Planning Commission was unable to establish alternative setbacks for the proposed lots in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) for the following reasons: 1 . NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) applies to the orientation of an existing lot and the request seeks to establish alternative setbacks for proposed lots. 2. The alternative setbacks application directly relates to and is necessary for the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and the findings for approval of the Tentative Parcel Map have not been met. Approval of alternative setbacks without approval of the Tentative Parcel Map under these circumstances would be; 1) unnecessary; and 2) detrimental to the peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the project site proposed use and the general welfare of the City. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 (PA2016-006). 2. The denial of the tentative parcel map shall become final and effective 10 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Chapter 19.12 (Tentative Map Review). 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Staff Approval No. SA 2016-020 establishing alternative setbacks for the lots 47 Resolution No. ### Page 4 of 4 4. The denial of the alternative setbacks in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the NBMC Chapter 20.26 (Appeals or Calls for Review). AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 48 I � � � I I • 1 • / • / / I ISRARIMMMUM-0.11 I 1 1 Sweeney/ Leggett Lot Split 4e Y z rC20�3,.6.Pidometry i Planning Commission Public Hearing January 19, 2017 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 06) Introduction - = ■ Sweeney/Leggett Lot Split Newport Parcel Map No. NP2o16-ooi (TPM No. 2015-186) Lot Size Deviation Staff Approval No. SA2o16-o2o Alternative Setback Determination Separation of Existing Condominiums ■ Corona del Mar Heliotrope Avenue at Bayside Drive 401 Heliotrope Avenue and 282o Bayside Drive 01/19/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 06) Vicinity Map OVA !7• 1. •� �V �� V �,-_ 01/19/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 3 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 06) Site • • • • •moi. .4 / �+' _ / r i Yy L 01/19/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division q Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 06) Site Plan 55.06' 62.95' l--- -----'---- --t---- -------- --------------1. 1 � I I u I I wl x¢lomoPe S j d I i PU CHE K 0269-2013 ,p 1 O J 1 PE M X2015-0965 1 J I 26z0 Mg I- 1 I a l aiECK Xz015-09" I 1 0 I I 1 I I 1 J w TEND I SETBACK AREA 2923 SO. FT. i ! ALLOWABLE AREA 4384 SQ. FT- 5, EXISTING AREA 4328 SQ. FT. j I SETBACK AREA 2397 SQ. FT. 15' I I 1 I 10.w ALLOWABLE 3580 SQ. Fr. 1 EXISTING AREA 3563 SQ. FF. i 1 ! I 1 1 1 i 4.63' I SLOPE AREA I I 1`� 0' PROPOSED i '6VIRTUAL SETBACK 1 0 0 0 PROPOSED ^� ,-, 60.15' 1 VIRTUAL SETBACK ! i - PRNATELY MAINTAINED 1 1 LANDSCAPE AREA --, 58.70' - EXISTING ACCESS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DR LANDSCAPE AREA EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS SITE PLAN 1 /16"= 1 ' 01/19/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 5 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 114 06) Tentative o� Map . �U�oar. ALL SITE ADDRESS 120.20 ea.6o - 401 HELIOTROPE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625 88.00 - ^ - �r - - (APN:459-172-16) NL4; 3244"E 68.16' _ 9850 11x1 -- PARCEL 1 PARCEL MAP NO.2013-176 ae.31 i P.M.B.381/43-45 � 11e.e3 , 99.51 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS 1 t8.00 SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,STATE 99'40 FF-100.00' OF CALIFORNIA,AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: a 13 PARCEL 1 0.085 AC PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO.2013-176,IN y ±4 O 99.91 EXISTING - oTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,COUNTY OF Q HOUSE $ I ap ORANGE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN ON "= 99.E a i A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 381,PAGES 43 m 99'1 _ 35 1W ,I--I THROUGH 45 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS IN 18.78'-• R THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF 99.80 1 1 `� SAID COUNTY. ml i N0$°2429-W a 4.63' 109.41 2 OWNER/DEVELOPER: EDWARD SWEENEY,A SINGLE MAN AND 100.00 / zKATHLEEN T.MAHONEY TRUSTEE OF THE C PARCEL 2 MAHONEY TRUST,U/A DTD 07107/2006,AS THEIR m 0.080 AC g INTERESTS APPEAR OF RECORD. 0 100.41 FF=100.50' N M �! EXISTINGW o:2 / G HOUSE 13$^ 1/A R1 $ 109.37 99.78 ) 1.7N– / L o� NZK 9 05�"QOMIN/ SG'A 95.77 98.93 4 �J Oy 1 99.46 1 SCALE=1'=20' n N9.8516 _-- Exp.12J31/16 - N40°3235E 54.00' ST'1T PREPARED BY: P OF CAOFO� 93.22 95.39 97.28 N 99.97 - - - — PAUL D.CRAFT,P.L.S.8516 01/19/2017 AJ=1 1t2T'0nDJ= A 1/F'/U//R LICENSE EXPIRES 12/31116 6 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 06) Issues ■ Lot Size Deviation Allowed if lots are not smaller than original lots ■ No General Plan Amendment Subdivision creates no more units than original lots Alternative Setbacks Avoids noncompliance with standards ■ Conditions maintain existing setbacks 01/19/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 7 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 06) Alternative a` � n Setbacks s cy �r Parcel i (282o Bayside)—IW— Parcel 2 (4oi nae . • . 3,638 sf(5,000 sf required) 3,570sf(5,000 sf required) • 65 feet (approx.) 57 feet (approx.) o feet to Bayside Dr. 15 feet to Heliotrope (20 feet required) (15 feet required) 5 feet to alley 4 feet to north (4 feet required) (4 feet required) 3 feet to east o feet to Bayside Dr. (4 feet required) (4 feet required) 4 feet to north 3 feet to west (io feet required) (io feet required) Buildable Area 2,923 sf 2,387 sf 4,384 sf 3,58o sf Total Existing GFA 4,328 sf(56 sf below limit) 3,563 sf(17 sf below limit) 01/19/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 8 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 06) Recommendation Conduct a public hearing ■ Find the Project Exempt from CEQA per Section 3.5301 ( Existing Facilities) ■ Approve Newport Parcel Map No. NP2o16-ooi JPM No. 2015-186) Staff Approval No. SA2o16-020 01/19/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 9 I I I Le 1 • /WANG. /III Lai Ire I M W I I I RA• RVAR1.71 11 1 WeI 1 1 46 II, N a ti 4 I I _ For more information contact: - James Campbell, Principal Planner 949-644-322-0 JcampbeII@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov