Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout72 - PH-3 - Attachment 2 - 7/21/2015Attachment 2 PLANNING COMM/SS/ON AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 22, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: T I l _ /5 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -17870 FOR A 6 -UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE DATE: JUNE 2, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714) 754-5608 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the following: 1. Planning Application PA -15-10: Design Review to construct a six -unit, two-story, small lot subdivision on a 23,159 sq. ft. lot in an R2 -MD zone. The project will include an automatic gate off the Orange Avenue entrance. In addition, the project requests the following deviations from the R2 -MD development standards: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). The property is a through lot with access from Orange Avenue and Norse. The property two-story detached homes consist of 3 to 4 bedrooms and two -car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 20'x 20'. 2. Tentative Tract Map TT -17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. APPLICANT The applicant is Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Approve by adoption of the Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions. 1,1 Location: 2366 Orange Ave APN: 119-092-43 PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Application Number: PA -15-10 & TT -17870 Request: Design Review of a six unit two-story residential development and a tentative tract m SUBJECT PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential, Medium Density __ General Plan: MDR Lot 82.5 FT x 300 FT Dimensions: Lot Area: 23,159 square feet Existing Development: Lot Area SURROUNDING PROPERTY: North: R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Density South: R-1 _ Sinole-Family Residential East: R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential, Me( . Density West: R-1 Single -Family Residential R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Density One parcel with multi -unit one-story residential development Open space (development lot) Open space (individual unit) General Plan — MDR (Med. Density Residential Land Use) Zone — R2 -MD (Multi -Family Residential, Med. Densitv Building Height Distance between main buildings Chimney Height Building Setbacks: Front (Orange Ave No minimum per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 30% (6,947 SF) of total lot area per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 200 SF with no dimension less than 10 feet per Small Lot Subdivision Standards Max. 12 du/ac 1 du/3,630 SF Max. 6 dwellinq units Two -stories / 27 ft. No Minimum /SLO 2 FT Above Max. Bldg. Ht. for total of 29 feet. -15- Lot 1- 4,744 SF (Orange Ave) Lot 2- 3,603 SF Lot 3- 3,603 SF Lot 4- 3,603 SF Lot 5- 3,603 SF Lot 6- 4,005 SF (Norse Ave) 7,528 SF— 33% Lot 1- 371 SF Lot 2- 202 SF Lot 3- 202 SF Lot 4- 202 SF Lot 5- 202 SF Lot 6- 228 SF 11 du/ac 1 du/3,860 SF (11.3 du/ac) 6 dwellinq units Two -stories / 27 ft. Lail units) 6'-4"(Lot 2&3and Lot 4&5) 6'-8" (Lot 5 & 6) T-0" (Lot 1 & 2 and Lot 3 &4) Lot 1- N/A (Orange Ave) Lot 2- 2'-0" Lot 3- 2'-0" Lot 4- 2'-0" Lot 5- 2'-0" Lot 6- N/A (Norse Ave) .......... ...._._..... __ - 20 ft. 1 16 ft.' Side Side Front Norse Avel % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan A) % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan B1 -A) % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan B2 -A) % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan B1 -B) % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan B2 -B) % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan C) I Parking Covered Open TOTAL Interior garage dimension I Driveway Length 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 22 ft. 20 ft. 12 ft.2 100% Plan A- 89% Plan 131 -A - 95% Plan 62-A - 95% Plan 61-B - 95% Plan 132-13 - 93% Plan C - 95% 2 garage spaces (3 or more bedrooms) each unit 2 open spaces (3 or more bedrooms) each unit + one additional on-site guest parking for developments with 5 to 10 units 25 spaces 10' x 20' — One Car Garage 20'x 20'— Two Car Garage - 19 ft. Final Action Plannin2 Commission CEQA Review Exempt, Class 3 for New Construction. Minor Modification required. 2- Administrative Adjustment required. 3 1 8 -foot driveway length minimum per Transportation Services. WE 12 spaces 13 spaces 25 spaces 20' x 20' 20 ft. (Lot 1) 18 ft. 3 (Lot 2) 18 ft.3 (Lot 3) 18 ft.3 (Lot 4) 18 ft.3 (Lot 5) 18 ft.3 (Lot 6) BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the east side of Orange Avenue, between Orange Avenue and Norse Ave. Norse Avenue is a cul-de-sac street abutting a portion of the easterly property line, and will provide secondary access for the proposed development site. The site is 0.53 acres (23,159 square feet) in size. The property zoned R2 -MD (Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. The site is bounded by two 2 -story and one single -story residences to the north, as well as one 2 -story and three single -story residences to the south. Across Orange Ave (west of project) is a two-story residence, and one-story residences are abutting the easterly property line. The existing single -story residences on the site will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. ANALYSIS Project Description The project involves the construction of a 6 -unit, two-story residential development based on the Residential Small Lot Subdivisions Ordinance. The unit types are summarized in the following table: Unit Tvve Summa Unit Size (Not Including Garage) Garage size 2,617 Sq. Ft. 441 Sq. Ft. 2,265 Sq. Ft. 427 5 . Ft 2,269 Sq. Ft. 427 So. Ft 2,269 Sq. Ft. 2,269 Sq. Ft. 2,687 Sq. Ft. 427 Sq. Ft 427 S . Ft 427 Sq. Ft Total Unit Size w/ arae No. of Bedrooms and Baths 3,058 Sq. Ft. 48eds/3 Bath + Bonus 2.692 Sq. Ft. 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 2.696 So. Ft. 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 2,696 Sq, Ft. 2.696 Sq. Ft. 3.114 Sq. Ft. 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 4Beds/3 Bath + Bonus No. of Stories 2 Stories/27 ft. 2 Stories/27 ft. 2 Stories/27 ft. 1 2 Stories/27 ft. 2 Stories/27 ft. 2 Stones/27 ft. No. of Garage S aces 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 s aces No. of Open Spaces 2 spaces 1 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 s aces 2 spaces 2 spaces No. of Guest Spaces 1 s ace Total On -Site Spaces 25 panting spaces _ _ On -Site Parking and Vehicular Circulation The proposed development is a Small Lot Subdivision, The parking requirements for a six -lot small lot subdivision is based on the number of bedrooms. The parking requirements are specified in Chapter VI, Article 2.5, Section 13-42.3, Table 13-42, Small Lot Subdivision Standards, of the Zoning Code, As noted in the table above, the proposed development proposes two enclosed garage spaces for each unit (12 total); additionally, 12 open parking spaces are provided within each individual 18 -foot driveway, for a total of 25 on-site parking spaces. The proposed parking complies with the number of parking spaces required per code. Vehicle access to the site will be provided from Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue through a private street. In addition, an automatic ingress/egress gate is proposed along the Orange Avenue entrance. The total backup distance will be 25 feet for each 18 -foot long open parking space (total distance from garage to rear of backup distance is 43 feet). The on-site 1.7___ vehicular parking and circulation has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division. Perimeter Walls/Fences A condition of approval requires the construction of a decorative perimeter block wall at a minimum 6 feet in height along the side property lines. No perimeter fencing is proposed along Orange Avenue or Norse Avenue, however an automatic ingress/egress gate is proposed along the Orange Avenue entrance. Building Architecture The proposed architecture for the 6 -unit project is considered two-story modern - craftsman style, and includes a combination of asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24 -inch and 12 -inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. The proposed colors are light and charcoal grays, and earthen tones. Architectural projections are included to maximize floor space on upper floors and provide building articulation, texture and color variation throughout the project's design. Trash Collection The project incorporates on-site areas for the storage of trash barrels for each unit. This property will be served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Access along the private driveway through the proposed project site will be permitted for Costa Mesa Sanitary District. In addition, any gate proposed on the project site will be required as a photocell type gate, which allows easy access for trash trucks onto the property. Tentative Parcel Map The proposed tentative tract map is for a six lot subdivision for a residential. common interest development. All common areas including the driveway and open parking spaces will be commonly used and maintained by a maintenance association or homeowners association as stipulated in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the development. The CC&R's will also include provisions requiring that all open parking spaces be unassigned and available for visitors and requiring residents to park vehicles in the garage spaces provided for each unit. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE The findings for approval of the proposed project require that be in conformance with the following planning documents: • General Plan • Zoning Code Conformance with the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential. Per the General Plan, Medium Density Residential is intended for residential development with a density up to 12 units to the acre (maximum 6 units). Because the density of the proposed project is 12 units to the acre (proposed 6 units), it is therefore consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. 1. Objective LU -1 A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency: The project is an infill residential project within the allowable density for medium -density development. Therefore, adequate infrastructure would be available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. 2. Objective LU -1A.4: Strongly encourage the development of ... owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: Because the proposed project is for ownership units, the project is consistent with this General Plan goal. 3. Goal LU -2: Development: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing a marginal residential dwelling as indicated in the site photos attached to this report. The proposed project would add a high-quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, perimeter wall treatments will be reviewed to ensure that they are made of decorative materials, and ornamental site landscaping will be provided throughout the project. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. 4. Objective LU -2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. In addition, the proposed project will replace older housing units and redevelop the property with brand new housing stock. The project is consistent with this objective. Conformance with the Zoning Code The City Council enacted a zoning ordinance (Title 13) in June 1997 that applies zoning code requirements for new development in the R2 -MD zone. In addition, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14-04 on April 1, 2014, amending Title 13 by creating Article 2.5 for Residential Small Lot Subdivisions. Article 2.5, Residential Small Lot Subdivisions, is intended to provide flexible development standards and to promote a wider range of homeownership of individual lots in multiple -family residential and overlay zoning districts. On April 21, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-03, amending Article 2.5 for Residential Small Lot Subdivisions, to amend rear and interior side setback requirements. Although the applicant is requesting deviations from the zoning code requirements, staff believes the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Code as discussed below. Justifications for Approval Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, based on an assessment of facts and findings which are also reflected in the draft resolution. The appropriate findings can be made for the requested code deviations. Code Section 13-29(g)(1) requires the following findings for the administrative adjustment, as described at the beginning of this report: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. 2. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Administrative ad ustment from front yard setback alonq Norse Ave would be justified by the unic ue orientation of the lot 00 feet required: 12 feet proposed. The property is a through lot with frontage on Orange Avenue and Norse. Lot 6/Plan C proposes to encroach into the required 20 -foot front setback along Norse Avenue, as a portion of Plan C is proposed at a 12 -foot front setback. Through approval of an administrative adjustment, the property can reduce front yard depth by no more than 40%, which would allow for a minimum 12 -foot front setback. The development lot has an unusual circumstance, in that there are two front setbacks and no rear setback, as a result of two public right-of-ways abutting the property, including Orange Avenue on the 2fY western portion of the property, and Norse Avenue on the east side of the property. Under normal circumstances, a property has a front, side and rear setback. The Small Lot Subdivision Standards allow for a 10 -foot rear setback. The structure is set back 12 feet from the closest point from the front property line, thus being set back further than permitted if considered the rear setback. Therefore, approval of an administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards, and allow the property the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. The existing structure along Norse Avenue features a comparable setback; and the administrative adjustment will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The request to encroach into the front setback by eight feet does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The existing development on the project site, and neighboring properties along Norse Avenue, currently encroach into the existing front setback, as shown in the picture. The existing garage on the project site is approximately 12 feet to front property line. Other properties along Norse Avenue cul- de-sac, as shown by red arrow, are as close as 10-11 feet from front property line. _121 Granting of the deviation will not allow a use density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the genera_l_plart_design tion for the praperty (6 units allowed, 6 units proposed). The proposed project is located within the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 12 units per acre. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of 6 units. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. In addition, Lot 6/Plan C would provide for an enhanced landscaped area along Norse Avenue, by reducing the amount of concrete and driveway currently on the project site along Norse Avenue. This reduction in concrete will provide visual enhancement for surrounding neighbors. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The appropriate findings can be made for the requested code deviations. Code Section 13-29(g)(6) requires the following findings for the minor modification, as described at the beginning of this report: : 1. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. 2. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Minor modification for front yard setback for Lot I1 Plat) A f20 feet required., 16 feet proposed to the support posts of the front patio.) could be supported. The project is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for the front setback along the front (westerly) property line to allow for the supporting posts of a projecting patio cover in the front entryway to project 4 feet into required 20 -foot front setback. The garage for Plan A is proposed to maintain a 20 -foot setback from the front property line. The setbacks of existing neighboring structures were considered with regard to the project's proposed modification to the front setback. The 20% reduction in front yard depth is located away from properties adjacent to the project site, and does not affect pedestrian travel along Orange Avenue. In addition, the proposed 16 -foot setback for the covered porch will not impact the visual line of site safety issues related to vehicular travel. The driveways for neighboring properties are located away from the proposed project site. The driveway for the neighboring property to north is located on the opposite side of the proposed project site. The projecting covered porch provides an attractive entrance into the project site. In addition, the proposed project provides for adequate landscaping with drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover to enhance the project site, as shown in the picture to the left. Therefore Plan A, as well as the entire development project, is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. -22. • The proiect exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and potentially evoke new development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. Per the City's Residential Design Guidelines, the variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the guidelines. The two-story modern -craftsman style architecture includes a combination of asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24 -inch and 12 -inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. The proposed colors are light and charcoal grays, and earthen tones. Second floor windows for Plan B2 -A and Plan B1 -B will be offset to avoid visual impacts to the second story windows to neighboring properties, as shown in the picture below. In addition, Lot 6/Plan C would provide for an enhanced landscaped area along Norse Avenue, by reducing the amount of concrete and driveway currently on the project site along Norse Avenue. This reduction in concrete will provide visual enhancement for surrounding neighbors, as shown in below picture. _ � I I moron 1111 � I .Mocw rx j I no�a„w�,m I I F+ 192 I I I I I I I I I I I rw.ii a�w � • The Declaration of the Covenants. Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) is required to be filed on the property. The Small Lot Ordinance requires that all small lot subdivisions establish some form of self -governance through CC&Rs, maintenance associations, and/or homeowner's associations. In the City of Costa Mesa, the most common type of association is an incorporated homeowner's association. This is a corporation in which the members of the corporation vote for a board of directors which runs the affairs of the corporation. The Small Lot Ordinance requires, at a minimum, that CC&Rs be recorded on the property. Because there are no common areas for circulation, parking, or landscape purposes, a condition of approval requires that the CC&Rs shall contain the ground rules related to: architectural control over future building modifications or additions, architectural design and guidelines for the _z3_ property, and engagement in alternative dispute resolution before filing a lawsuit to resolve conflicts. The landscape concent plan is consistent with the City's standards for multi -family development. Specifically, the plan includes landscaping in the setback abutting the public right-of-way, within the private open space areas, and along the driveway and parking areas for each unit. The concept plan shows approximately 8 large trees along the perimeter of the development lot, shrubs along the fences and perimeter of each unit to encourage privacy, and drought tolerant ground cover throughout the project. Also, enhanced landscaping will provide visual relief along Norse Avenue. As stated in the conditions of approval, two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, the project will be required to plant one (1) 24" Box Pyrus calleryana `Chanticleer' along the Orange Avenue parkway. The project will provide on-site parking spaces that meets current parking standards (25 spaces required; 25 spaces proposed). As noted earlier, the parking requirements for a small lot subdivision are based on the number of bedrooms. The project would provide 12 garage/covered parking spaces, 12 open parking spaces, and 1 guest parking spot, for a total of 25 spaces. The open parking spaces are distributed throughout the project to provide convenient parking for future guests within the development. In addition, an automatic ingress/egress gate is proposed along the Orange Avenue entrance. The gate, as approved by Transportation services, shall be a minimum of 20 feet from Orange Avenue property line in order to reduce queuing along Orange Avenue. The automatic gate is conditioned to be a lower noise type to the extent feasible. The ,oroiect features quality construction and materials. As noted earlier, the building exteriors consist of alternating smooth stucco, horizontal wood siding, and vertical wood siding, along with composition asphalt shingles, standing seam metal roofs for covered porches, and decorative window treatments. In addition, a decorative 6 -foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, will be located along northerly and southerly property lines. As stated in the conditions of approval, no modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Any modification should be consistent to originally proposed materials and colors as originally proposed. In addition, a decorative 6 -foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director, shall be constructed along the side boundaries of the site prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. —1--4 — ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303 for New Construction. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL REVIEW The draft resolutions have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. As of June 10, application PA -15-10 has not received a communication from any property owner located within a 500 -foot radius of the project site. ALTERNATIVES Approve the project with modifications. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Deny the proiect. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. - Q'5_ CONCLUSION The project is deemed to be a high-quality development, therefore it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Code. Legal findings could be made to justify approval of the specified deviations from code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project. Resolutions for approval and denial of the project are attached for consideration by the Planning Commission. (-J) RYAN kodOs CL E FLYNN, AICP Associate Planner Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 1. Vicinity, Zoning, and 500 ft Radius Maps 2. Site Photos 3. Applicants Project Description 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolutions and Exhibits 5. Project Plans/Elevations/Perspectives Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Owner: Kings Road Partners LLC 12 Strawberry Farms Rd Irvine, CA 92612 Authorized Agent: Eric Trabert 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 ,2(r- r � -�•� r r� t .may +. 4'` * �► . V *. 1, A ' ' R City of Costa Mesa ZONING/GPA MAP- 2366 ORANGE - [Created: 6/5/2015 10:20:12 AM] [Scale: 349.62] [Page. 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map Legend Address Nmv"rt aLVD Al Parcel Lines & Ci -s Points Prirtwrt• ❑ City % C2 Freeway SLCONDARY Boundary a CL A R Hydrology Roads Channels Water Ways N PIR.s �V Collodar Zoning MG F rsve�� Street Names AP a MP P Major (conte Street ® C 1 ■ PDC Centerlines [cont} (cont) 1 ry „ a ! wu a — AVENUE : — = ELWN - ,; Y r APT MC7 ; r4' rrtncr,71 .,. �� „ o c0I�� 2!- p pPo c r q ] 2 D W PRO.£Cr 3 U +i P.40:CC r ° + e eswae aea-aal � . O O O w © ..V. PRpfECr : C07 f w 3 PAR.1 e,J]Ao. ra.2a4 31 PAR.1 B p a46sAG 7 ` ;9 t3 21 `1 Ar. 2 48 '1, ° AMA 2 t1` r �J ; �., y 71 1 17 x t: v� ] s d261 ,e NO +„ ° opo NO N0. I o, 96 1!375 119 ,. n• wu• 9] 1.3042 , 0„•N0.'¢69 ~ yl y m , a®;1`a 0 a © ,g 4 Cr, [, D 26 0 LT p F4 ^ [s 9 r RQ¢ LOT raat O 'D ,1 © Q • 1•i G) O E .1`l l J 4 -7! �15G © � � YO. w �• ' F8 °r 38 : 35 i 1`w "fr. k Urtn ,vim — AVENUE ', a R ORAN c 1 ]FRA „ k 1.1 TRACT P. M, 1 1 . a TRACTa MAC7' 2 Q PAR. r PAR. 2 PAR.11. i 4.350 AC. It � Fro• � .. ] ,.0 W OH a OO POR. PAR. IF PAR. S PAR. 4 LOT IOB s _ r• O ,r T x 4$ 23 a $ 1`s•• ' �� Y- s ' Q Z7 ► 3e NQ. 300 NORSE '� •�. NORSE ti AVENUE k r r TRACr ,0t S1 H M 092 y 4ti 13 T 31 >< 45 TRACT 6 3 zp 52 W „ 41 � N0. 14431 � a O ” ` ¢ a0k corl7r ” ; 539 AG a f1 POR. LOT I09 " � 1 � I n � ,r W y 8 �• i ,� Q P3 aoc o-.1` -� O r h " " a P. M. y 3 N 10 ar 'r 53 " 36 li' OM1 p NO. 300 'o 1; 303.3 � � NO. 4 300 37 r I 11' , w- fwesrA4rnsTcR a[ar£1 y s k CARLTON PLACE se — r a 41 4z AJ a; �' � CARL TON e s:t r1R:+Srd.Y At 4rc ! I• PLACE ]�j �¢�) � [�] lei J Y (D t/ (D ( `-J 19 4¢ W 'x 'ER VIV,� AV£NU£ M - — "V- m C P• 12 T �-� 7] w n- w w >ya• - Is s. � (D 9 O 4 v LIT 1`07 car a2Z 132 ,A _jr s 4 ] PAR .1 o7r 49 AC �r TRACT N0. 300 yu w, r, 0. 149 4C. •f. PAR.4 A 52 PAR.J 0.C. a • !� 341,•-12 p =a O CS. 133 !S 1 WES77AIJiTER POR. A VEM.E : or 1`72 0 NO.300 Jo 19 J9 27 z9 �! 1• Y w r rRA�Cr rRAcr L'r.• � +4�9 7 A O<Y6s MAC: PAZ 78 s J7 ,. , p � :4 �a pz i� �u.a �n �n1`• �u �N0. :ss .p7:•TRAnaC� 7 9 z O45 5 419 ,a lJ I ` TRACT Q $ 41 „ POR " car a2Z P. M."I Pt 2 j t PAR .1 o7r 49 AC a d w, r, 0. 149 4C. •f. PAR.4 A 52 PAR.J 0.C. 0.1`71 AC. 341,•-12 CS. 133 !S 1 WES77AIJiTER POR. A VEM.E : or 1`72 0 NO.300 Jo 19 J9 27 z9 �! 1• Y w r rRA�Cr rRAcr L'r.• � +4�9 7 A O<Y6s MAC: PAZ 78 s J7 ,. , p � :4 �a pz i� �u.a �n �n1`• �u �N0. :ss .p7:•TRAnaC� 7 9 z O45 5 419 ,a lJ I ` n •fit- - �. r7 yRi*f a` r Orange Avenue View • X11 ..i � - -+'r l � '- f fj - 1J1 r ` I �"�'� '�="+,+urs•:: S� -- 1216---71 73M A Z fJ. AOL Owl I -f r t� 1 7 f _ S i, Attachment 3: Applicants Project Description I 49 March 24, 2015 City of Costa Mesa P.O. Box 1200 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92628-1200 Subject: Design Review Application— Letter of Description of Work RE: 2366 Orange Avenue Costa Mesa, Ca. To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in accordance with the city's requirement for information about the project we are submitting for design review. The property is located between Orange Avenue & Norse Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa. We are proposing six (6) two-story single family dwellings; three (3) floor plan types and four (4) elevations. The square footage of these dwellings ranges from 2250 square feet to 2600 square feet. Each unit is designed with a two car garage, and two additional guest parking spaces per unit; plus one per zoning requirement. The architectural design of these is in keeping with the City of Costa Mesa's design standards for small lot sub- divisions. �r l Y, Eric rabert Eric Trabert & Associates —3(P-- Attachment 4- Resolution and Exhibits RESOLUTION NO. PC -15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA -15-10: Design Review to construct a 6 -unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 11 Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT -17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines, and has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for New Construction. WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions of approval contained within Exhibit B, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Planning Application PA -15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT -17870. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA -15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT -17870 and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit B and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 2015. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22nd, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission _3q,-., EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL A The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project complies with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features. Facts in Support of Findings: The architectural design of the development meets the intent of the City's Residential Development Standards and Design Guidelines and promotes design excellence with consideration given to site planning and building orientation, overall open space, landscaping and architectural design. Second floor windows will be required to be offset to minimize direct views onto adjacent second floor residential windows, and the elevations will have exterior elevation treatments as recommended in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed two-story structures are in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood which has a variety of two-story buildings. The elevations of the proposed residences include a variety of materials, articulating roof lines, and use of window treatments to highlight the vertical offsets and horizontal floor to floor transitions. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision meets the broader goals of the General Plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project provides ownership opportunities for detached units in place of the existing residential structures. The project exhibits site planning excellence by providing private open spaces for all units and adequate separation between the homes and the abutting structures. B. The proposed parcel map complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(13) because: VIM Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient amenities as a small lot subdivision development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The density for the residential component is 11.3 units per acre (6 units maximum), which complies with allowable density of 12 units per acre (6 units maximum) per the General Plan. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The project site is already developed with multi -family residences, and does not have any sensitive environmental resources. The proposed project will provide for high-quality housing and not impede upon the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in a north -south direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The southern facing rooflines also have the potential to provide for active solar heating and energy generation through the use of solar panels. Finding: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract. Facts in Support of Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along Orange and Norse Avenues will significantly improve the public right- of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, a 5 -foot side setback provides for adequate access space for the existing utility easement along the southern property line. A letter of approval [pending at the date of this report] from Southern California Edison will allow the project to encroach into the 6 -foot utility easement. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. b. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. c. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project, specifically Lot 6/Plan C, proposes to encroach into the required 20 -foot front setback along Norse Avenue, as a portion of the residential unit is proposed at a 12 -foot front setback. The development lot has an unusual circumstance, in that there are two front setbacks as a result of abutting two public right-of-ways, including Orange Avenue on the western portion of the property, and Norse Avenue on the east. Under normal circumstances, a property normally has a front, side and rear setback, and the small lot subdivision standards would allow for a 10 -foot rear setback. The primary access for the development lot is Orange Avenue, and therefore is considered the dominant front portion of the development lot. Without Norse Avenue, Lot 6/Plan C would be considered the rear portion of the development lot, and therefore be allowed to utilize a 10 -foot rear setback. The structure is setback 12 feet from the closest point from the front property line, thus being setback further than what would be allowed if considered the rear setback. Therefore, approval of an administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards, and allow the property the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. The proposed project does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The proposed project is located within the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 12 units per acre. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of 6 units. 791 The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: a. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. b. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: The project is requesting a Minor Modification to allow for an encroachment into the required front yard setback. The project, specifically Lot 1/Plan A, is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for the front setback along the front (westerly) property line to allow for the supporting posts of a projecting patio cover to project 4 feet into required 20 -foot front setback. The garage for Plan A is proposed to maintain a 20 -foot setback from the front property line. The setbacks of existing neighboring structures were considered with regard to the project's proposed modification to the front setback. The 20% reduction in front yard depth is located away from properties adjacent to the project site, and does not affect pedestrian travel along Orange Avenue. In addition, the proposed 16 -foot setback for the covered porch will not impact the visual line of site safety issues related to vehicular travel. The driveways for neighboring properties are located away from the proposed project site. The driveway for the neighboring property to north is located on the opposite side of the proposed project site. The neighboring property to the south is a corner lot, and the corresponding driveway is not located along Orange Avenue. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood, In addition, the project will be required to comply with all applicable provision of the Uniform Building Code with regard to safety. In regards to design, Plan A is designed to be consistent with the materials, massing, scale and articulation of the multi -family residential area for maximum compatibility. The design of Plan A is well articulated with overhangs, porches, roof dormers, and stepped floor plans. The projecting covered porch provides an attractive entrance into the project site. In addition, the proposed project provides for adequate landscaping with drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover to enhance the project site. Therefore, Plan A and the entire development project is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of _4 , the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. E. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303 for New Construction. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. F The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. MIN EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1 The expiration of Planning Application PA -15-10 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map T-17870 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. 2 The conditions of approval of PA -15-10 and T-17870 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. The Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a tentative map consistent with Chapter XI. Subdivisions, Article 1. Tentative Maps, of the Zoning Code. 4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Tentative Tract Map TT -17870. 5 A decorative 6 -foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director, shall be constructed along the side boundaries of the site prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. Where walls on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side-by-side walls with gaps in between them and/or provide adequate privacy screening by trees and landscaping. 6 The interior fences or wails between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height. 7 All future walls and fences within front yard setback along Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue Place shall conform to the standards per the Walls, Fences, and Landscaping Standards and Specifications. 8. The automatic gate at Orange Avenue placed along the private driveway shall be subject final review/approval by the Transportation Manager, and shall also meet requirements per Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding entry. Gates shall be of high quality design and feature a low noise type of gate to the extent feasible. In addition, private property signs shall be displayed on gates. 9. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the driveway shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The driveway shall be complemented by stamped concrete in order to reduce damage caused by sanitary trucks entering site for trash pickup. 10. The open, unassigned parking space located between Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be clearly marked as guest parking space only. Signage shall be posted to indicate that this space is available only to guests and visitors and not used for resident parking. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be —15— submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 13. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and contain additional 24 -inch box size trees above the minimum code requirements. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller size trees to 24 -inch box size trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. 14. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. This includes any modification not consistent with the proposed asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24 -inch and 12 - inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. Any modification should be consistent to originally proposed colors, including light and charcoal grays and earthen tones. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 15. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 16. The front porch overhang for Plan C shall not contain supporting posts that encroach beyond the proposed 12 -foot front setback. Awnings and eaves that are not supported by supporting posts can project 5 -feet into front setback. 17. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on-site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. Applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. 18. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring residential uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to residents during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 19. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 20. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: a. Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. b. Building shall be oriented north/south where feasible. 21. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office. a. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. b. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. —1,1 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall file and record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property. The establishment of a homeowner's association shall be optional. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a draft of the CC&Rs shall be remitted to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review and approval. Because there are no common areas for circulation, parking, or landscape purposes, the CC&Rs shall be limited to the ground rules related to: architectural control over future building modifications or additions, architectural design and guidelines for the property, and engagement in alternative dispute resolution before filing a lawsuit to resolve conflicts, The Development Services Director has the discretion to request any other provisions in the CC&Rs to promote self -governance between the two property owners. 24. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that the open parking space (not leading to a garage) shall be unassigned and available for visitors. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to use, preservation and maintenance of the common drive aisle and open space areas in perpetuity by the maintenance or homeowner's association 25. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the maintenance or homeowner's association effectively manage parking and contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations. 26. Prior to final recordation of the map, applicant shall provide written documentation from Southern California Edison to specifically allow the encroachment into the utility easement by the proposed structures. This document may indicate that the easement will be quitclaimed or modified to allow the proposed structures. This documentation shall be approved by the Development Services Director and the City Engineer prior to final map recordation unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director. The City Attorney's office shall require legal documentation (i.e. hold harmless agreement, etc.) be submitted by the applicant if construction is allowed to proceed while the quitclaim process (other other procedure as specified by SCE) is pending. 27. The Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Association shall submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: a. The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). b. The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. c. The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. 28. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above- ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened from view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 29. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 30. Concrete wheel stops shall be installed 2' from the front edge of open parking spaces, or where applicable, landscape planters shall be increased 2' in depth to allow curbing to serve as a wheel stop. Eng 31. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). Eng. 32. Provide a three-foot public sidewalk easement behind existing right of way line on Norse Avenue for ADA compliance. Eng 33. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of- way by sweeping or sprinkling. Pkwys 34. Plant one (1) 24" Box Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' along the Orange Avenue parkway. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1 All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2 Applicant shall provide the City with proof of general liability insurance including endorsements concerning "additional named insured", "advance notice", and "primary coverage" as approved by the City attorney's office. �q� 3. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall contact the US Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. 6. A minimum 20 -foot by 20 -foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 7. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 8. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 9. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 10. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 12. All on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 13. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 14. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 15. Prior to approval of plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 16. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be inoperable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 17. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 18, Planning Commission action on PA -15-10 shall not become final until seven (7) days following final action. Bldg. 19. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards, and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Areas of alteration and additions shall comply with 2013 California Green Building Standards Code section 5.303.2 and 5.303.2. 20. Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 21. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the soils report shall address how existing or new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. 22. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge devise a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 23. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 24. Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or noncombustible material if they project into the 5 -foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 -foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1 (1) and R302.1 (2). 25. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 26. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 27. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 28. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Trans. 29. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 30. Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of occupancy by submitting to the Planning Division the required traffic impact fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The traffic impact fee is calculated including credits for all existing uses. NOTE: The Traffic Impact Fee will be recalculated at the time of issuance of building permit/certificate of occupancy based upon any changes in the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council and in effect at that time. 31. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. Fire 32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 33. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13D. 34. Street addresses shall be visible from the public street and may be displayed either on the front door, on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance, or on another prominent location. When the property has alley access, address numerals shall be displayed in a prominent location visible from the alley. Numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Eng 35. At the time of development submit for approval an Offsite Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Division that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Construction Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13- 231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 36. Maintain the public Right -of -Way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and remove any spillage from the public Right -of -Way by sweeping or sprinkling. 37. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off-site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 38. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the —5:3— Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for new driveway approaches. 39. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Off-site Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 40. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 41. Fulfill Drainage Fee requirements per City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 06-19 prior to approval of Final Map/Approval of Plans. 42. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, using latest version of template dated August 2011, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a) A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2 County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3 Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4 The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off-site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7 Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at -J4--- (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708-1910 for information. Cable 11. The applicant shall contact the current cable company prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. _65�' RESOLUTION NO. PC -15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT - 17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA -15-10: Design Review to construct a 6 -unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT -17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby DENIES Planning Application PA -15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT -17870. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 2015. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission _560— STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22nd, 2015 by the following votes: AYES. COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission —6-9 i EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project does not comply with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code or meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has not been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision does not meet the broader goals of the General Plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. B. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. • The deviations constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. • The granting of the deviations will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. C. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: • The improvement will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. • The improvement is not compatible and does not enhance the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. D. The subdivision of the property for a residential common interest development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. E. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Planning Application PA -15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT -17870. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. F. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. r 51— RS CALIFORNIA GREEN GORE 2013 BRE DEVELOPMENT - C5651- 4,106 D [le'.t.lA:t��l rt.ttn fw4L ii'r 111 r�sl Te -Ar! �pl.>c. IrIAM.6E ] r sTn I Iryy.rATASCC Au. b11sRAC6 rMf>•JtRCIw ty nxpr HAArR fAwn HIIpT>,} MA]�Y!!•MIATLS RtRrW V+ a.ulw.Y �/vu.w� .C410l. PT +.N a0V 4HA9m W 1K 1tYAAYthY ANO DISFosAL STSTEHI I�ru»aR �i R� nmcs Iusrr�ieoaroR� »E FlxrwE vlow RATEz of OUTDOOR WATfl! USE - GG�BSC�9O4,1 Fp,I- EASED coNmaD.ERs­LS IL ISE N `xTr�oRl oR solL INODENT PROOFING - CGBSG 4[406.1 OP NfIIx-No IttARii�Rlk• YMd'PIAi/4•w l!*en r•e.:1rr:4�! CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION - CGBSG 4.405 ITTAHUN cbanwctwl was M.AwxEeilr nl.rl..riz IIT fAC..Y!!G• pglgtlnqfnt: cvH T%qT ArraE�tl4ManAN°ATaRr wNSTM,cn-oN ANIN D BlA1.DNG MA49iTENANCi.4Np OPp4ATIpH • CGbDq AA10 a t�r•m+wr anmw Iw. s+-rT..� mw..s '"w�ce rG„,GT�E°G�4,iED� r-vexr SEALED-conX,srlaN POLLIR9ON I:p971ROL • Ct7p 4}jOA EF [OtTRCr i..ci GItfA Al.'.VISG•Mtn TO n' L.: PR GMTT w2ba M1 THE STNED H1. _=-1 AND O 1 FEMINE_tENT'�IINc -STANCES, IN .-INS141-11111 rdxv of CUIFDRNw 100E of INTERIOR MOISTURE CONTROL - Cb69C 4.505 °1«N=SS n D�161 MIFE,EiaNAL 11 A�EFTAELE 6 AN �i V4O1S•1%lMz GCT/rEr'Nr OP ONXIM4 T44RI45FL.L- CGB�9CN4.D007 als HTN Vlsiele slags aF HA-Aww F InnbwNE iw FEET TZ FE . AIgYlR.L4 e11r4awanl ,Y:�:•W M1idM:gV:.A�iavloEO IIIIELY INpOOR AIR QUALITY A 9]WAUST - CINSW 4.506 4 ra fYT>*IpW:111A_E UMIP44:►LrypLiElIDClIwO1 trs qwn� rwi pr ab1uE� T FAN IwicN E<NAusTs OIIz[cnr rYzan EF D -6T TAF` ND EF ­ TEN" =_S E .1TI emE lb. --ETA DISIA1-1- � -T-11. �r51rm"Vh ft rYI.rly 74 itv lll9el�(brl. NF �NT� NA ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT - C66SG 4.50'1 ° AND PANNIIAI -11 kSAN NA--aRaFI�.o EESI0�F-- AFE SUED TZ =-A AHNAL bj Ft2VM9LSiNVDE WrV4' ,6RE�:Drvw..m..1w�.NIA.1a .o - I v Hmlm.l.nm.,,aS.iwf b.tirYTA.l9r rr nAN.:.. 4,w `�a io a<oimm..ih+4.1K5An1.rNa1o19 w. Nw:q... cul;! m�u Cur tlA'Infnw :iA.fT,Wl+o Otl]o listY• vsiio 1x aL,m aem1T RhcrW aN l:es a lnutununl IhicAnox of A m:llimc NATIONAL POLLUTANT P15CHARCE ELIMINATION 5Y5TEM (NPDES) NOTES Notes must be shown as worded, on the title sheet of the plan I. In the case aF emergency, call ° •n Pbrk Phone A or Home PnoNE (9491 4O -a 2, Sedlrb nb From areas dls[urbed bl cansbucIbN shall be retained on site using structural controls to the -4,'..m a 1ol,t prac[IcdTle. 3.Stockpiles of 100 shall be properly c Whed to mlNMI,o zodlm transport from Me 1 r ad 0 en[ a U- via runoff -Wd, tackle site [o streets, drahage acllltles o f c prop g,o wind. 4. Appropriate EMP's for construction -related materials, wastes, spills shall be Implemented to -.1- 1r port from the sOI, to streets, J,. -go FaclllFles, or adjoinll g properties by whd or _N,. 5. RunaFF from equipment and vehicle rvCE,I:g shall be --lbed a[ -1- h- sites .to,, treated to reduce or remove sed -d and other poll,[onts 6. All coretruc[lon contractor and w,,CnT-t, personnel are to to made aware or the regl,hed best management pr«Nces - good ho.sekeeping meawres for the project site and IN assocla[ed canslrucllon 4.l creat. 1. At the end oI eoch dery of construction activlty all construction deMls aM waste mnterlals shall be collected and properly disposed h trash a recycle bins. a. ien.lr.ellpn .Nn tl.* Im mT14d t. weN u ct� ure .rl eYley!e[ed L[aVs don act .ld91n a pa4AI.VMiV! IM .ks. Disalr>r9.1 W vOf++1gl oUar iltalt Har. 1 Nlyn nr[.4...y Y.a P.rlcrwr�e nM crwPlel4+a N.:nrt.wlFr. prxlYn {.N9 •VIGr. Yry tivfnl, :mYe x •aM1:al. N.4, .L IWpa M a+) I.a9•Ir [Pf4�l .e 5,rn, Cor.. n tired W apzy. pa1yL'pA fl.(eai.14tix p Iwpre9; 9 ,.:1 n:h.ln c! N v 4pveey r pa•[ad. VPS Flwlin we,Lwlem 0 eFfl, ot att NT obd 302 4, FA tw PgT1NaNt "R VAS r..ee fnAad ie• .exd a 1.TW H.eIrv4W fyldkrsM.s fro lvFlklloM.ldM` IM. PNdki"R Iwil1A 711n.wrytlp,e.ad .e1t.INr, o.reNut.IE'vn; �[ [I.%.. r tNaten 9wH, dl. rowan.. ad hpolle, natxn d elinY Ihldel f.=INirtre ..4:4 A!4A^^i ..xel .len !an LCKraU wnM I.CICe;[maHf, delerg.:1 1iYietdll tiaNay: rn.i.f Ira Q^1 aq>3./egr{m. HOU. clelwv) x eAWae1 A�teufr.)ota r4.Vrrlivwf.d p.Ndm! rvater Ilne Flushhg IMing <ons[ructlon, permlltee shall dispose of -1, materials In a specified and ontr011ed temporary oro.on -site, plyslcally separated From potential stormwater runoff, with ult9nate disposal 111 accordmce with local, state and Federal requirements, 10. Dewatering of c NITlnated groundwater, or discharging 11bo hated sails via surface erosion Is pl-IMEted. Dewatering of non -contaminated groundwater requires a Natlonol Pollutant D-horge EIVnina[lon System Perml[ From [he respective SFde Regbrnl Water Duality Ganbol Board IA Graded areas on the permitted area per9neter must drain away from the Face of slopes at the conclusion of each workhg doll. Drahage Is to be directed tool desllthg 'ICIII[Iss, 12, The permiltee and conlroctor shall be responsble and All take necessary m=Fo pre 4 publlc trespass onto areas where ImpouMed water creates a audition 13. The permittee and ...tractor shall bspe t the erosion control work and Insure that [he work Is In accordance with to approved plans. 14. me permittee 6111 notify all general c Tractors, subcontractors, material wppller% lessees, and property 0 s: [hot dumping of chemicals Into [he ztwm drain system 0r the watershed is prohibltedr IS Equipment and rvorkers for emergency work sMll be made available at all times dlrhg Me alny z anon. Necessan) materMls shall 1- avalldTle on site and stockp1led at venlen[eloca[Ions to FOcllltate rapid con N[ tIm of temporary dbo= hen rain Is m ine4. 16. All removable erosion protect Ne devices shall be In place at the end OF each workhg boy when the 5-0a9 Rab Probcb1111y Forecast -ods 4 . J. 5edlments From areas dlstabed by conslrvctlon shall be rot.l on site using o, of -tive combination of erosion and sediment controls to [he maxlmm extent practl,ob'o, and s[ockplles of sail shall be properly -Robed to mb9nlze sedhnent transport from the z to -V -P,, dralnage Ia11Uhe, 01 aaja,en[ properNes'I rlmoFf, vehicle tracking, or wind, IF Appropriate BMP, For cons[rvctlonYela[ed ma[erlals, wastes, spills ar residles sf Itl be implemented and retained on site to mhimizs transport from the sits to streets, d'0lnags Facllltles, or adjohing property by wind IT runoff NOTES CONSULTANTS BUILDING DP�T,4 I. GONSTRUCTIdJ PLANS 6 CALCULATIONS 50ALL COMPLY YYITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENA 2013 EDITION, GE G. 2013 EDITION, CKC- 2013 EDITION CPG 2013 EDITION, CA ENET2GY 2009 EDITION A GAL6REEN CODE 2013 EDITION 2. SEPARATE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR EACH BUILDING OR STRUCTURE; Ef . FENCE HALLS, RETAINING WALLS, INDOOR/ OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOLS A 5PA$ (BLDG. ORDINANCE) 3. MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM CITYS ENGINEERING DEPT PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE 4. ENGINEERING DEPT, APPROVAL OF OFF-51TE AGGE55 AND WATER QUALITY BMPP IF APPLICABLE PRIOR TO PERMIT 155UANGE. 5 PER SECTION 3011.1 CAL6REEN AND CIVIL CODE 110(3(11, ALL NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES WITHIN THIS RESIDENCE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH WATER -CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURE$ BUILDING FINALED ON OR AFTER 01/01/94 ARE EXEMPT FROM TP5 REOUIREMENT, DEFERRED SUBMITTALS A FIRE SPRINKLERS B. ROOF TRU55 DESIGN CALCULATIONS A SHOP DRANINCf NOTE: THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL REVIEW THE DEFERRED SUBMITTALS, VERIFY THEIR CONFORMANCE 14TH THE BUILDING DESIGN AND CERTIFY PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR PLAN REVIEW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT INSTANT LA1rID6fdPB pi 11W SANTA DRIVE 4e1c:95-I B' CA 9x691 l9 CIVIL ENGINEERING ROSH B. HANDS std ASS=. NG x . PTH [£SAGA I SNUE -Oi STRUCTURAL EN6INEERIN6 . RODOaTAVoA II, NG R A IANI All ONMR&Y 1951 =._Z 935To SCOPE OF WORK NEW 6 UNITS OF TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DNEL,ING (16,969 SQ FTJ UNIT A SITZ PLAN 9 UNIT A (FLOOR PLANS AND ROOF PLAN) • aTrP ••Opti 10-, 1 • 1APKRKI SPACES, ].I OMtASE ATO TON•5HL' -A UNIT BIS UNIT B7 -B rm"wrom) LIARA A �.]I E 4Tl6-ITT I' •.YI ��1 WN 3 ILOFT • A t•,14d ,y!Ip y1[t] 2 IN GARAriE AND 2 ON-SITE 4I IiCa2-A - .RFA -IT r NMS OI fM1HR[JQ4`.i OF. uzKItA65PACF5 OFT 2hq+R.kc +W TpF91l11 UNIT BI -B LI A" GARA•{ AREA SOFT 421 SO FT CF DE -3 •AX MTMCWe ..}t rtyrl.Ip lFA4rGS r LOFT 4 A wpwl w4, lAFFil UN- L EI2_ h•I"k= AREA - RAREA GF EATHROOMTACES 1 �T LI VIIG AREA - RA{ PREA rt [4eR/e�MS . OF PARKING SPACES 60VERNIN6 AUTHORITY GIN OF G05TA HE5A, CA GOVERNING CODE 2013 CBG, 2013 GR G. 2013 G E G 2013 GMC, 2013 G,R. 2013 G ENERGY GORE 2013 CALGREEN AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS 13Y THE GITY OF COSTA MESA OCCUPANCY 6RCHR R3N CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB APN No, 119-092-43 TRACT / LOT 300 / lob CITY OF G05TA MESA / STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADOPTED AMENDMENTS LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION SITE AREA DI59 SOFT. DRNIILGrn ERA6E (46 %1 = lObba `� N SPACE AAZEA + (i.U�M111aiT: L D vEWAY a OPEN P f30 %1 = pM SOFT. '- NOTE: EUILDING FOOIPRIM < MEA IRDER TIE ROOF EAVES A SOLID ROOFS AAS INC.I-UDED IN THE CALCULATION OF 11E fLI1-DIN6 OOVHEnSE F -VICINITY MPTP Doug DeCinces tract 300, .Got 108 Costa Mesa, CA INDEX OF SHEETS S GOVOK 9MEEi... 1 SITZ PLAN 9 UNIT A (FLOOR PLANS AND ROOF PLAN) 4 UNIT A (IlLWATIONS) S 6 UNITS 51-A 4 01-5(FLOOR PLANS AND ROOF PLAN) UNIT Ell (ELNATTONS) T UNIT B7 -B rm"wrom) S UNIT 03 (FLOOR PLANS AND BOOP PLAN) 9 UNIT 52 (ELEVATIONS) 10 UNIT c (FLOOR PLANS) 11 uNIT c (ROOF PLAN) 13 UNIT c IELEVATIONS) 1 Tel TRAGI AND PRELMNARY GRADING PLAN T-1 TTRE SHEET L-1 LAN1764-APE PLAN (ORANGE) L-2 LANDSCAPE PLAN (NORSE) L -S LANDSCAPE I -LAN (Mil ERIC TRAtBERT 4 ASSOCIATES 951 RVINE CENTER MVE IRVINF, (ALFIIANA 926IB -TU 149812144 FAIf:9490412211 a dAdm" . DOU6 DEGINGES Attachment 5.- Project Plans/Elevations/Perspectives APPROVED REVISIONS ARA SN,5I.TYTF ,, -CT S1KI - P]A,@0r. n A �Y1 �I�Lvlr•CSC1tiC SM1IfI x4,11 RF[4il! YiAN139G.1k4 AFL TrAJ _. M rYrsrr-W ]9%ee PUMP ;^sJll- � Ir LOT 1 _ I0 ti .. �N `A'+7'7 W LLOT 2 N B1—A i J - 330.00_ ------------------- i----------- -_--__-___.-.i-____-_-_______ 1_� .i ■ !1 ■ 1 0 ,l Ii's 1 "" Lo llw� 1. Ml-� ; 1 1 - Up W 01:101 �r ffw I� 4 pill —Hn Ia T.— xMA H -ATM �? 1j I SITE NOTES ARAre -T Is —111 FORE euaolNG OR awE: EG. FENCE wuLs, a AININe wALLz. varaw unwOR 5X'�N"�IX; PooLS r s°A5 r�L� oROINww i 3 TB.POrNRY INGREYrEGRE55, STc PILIIYa AA ­ ,NG RtIrE APPROKNES A11O/OR RRLITY :NSTALLAn W.IN —11 RI WT OP WAT REdnRES wN ENCROAGwEM PE _ DE 005E STREET xMBER VISIBLE 1 LEGie%E II— IwH. BE NNN�� TIB FIXE a°6 "1H TIE AAGIB��N1:'" o k FOOnNG5 AT11- TI—L An M.5r BE BOARD FatMED ELInIxATE BOIL WER ANO ALL E Ob GOICRETE —T BE REroJEO FRIM TIE H+O.KT'-ATE�� RIS,RIn,RON 5:5,L� ��Ri r<ATE,T A�/GR GwG RED— -P NY PPRo N 5 REm REo F-E ER Lo wnoN oR 51 EOI G F REFIGN R UE ro A "�u.L BE FRO.nNEo wNR A uax Iw,< POR A NEY w� rRiCALLY OPERATEnI TO NLON cicrEc"5s :oV­ scnn�E TER cFc w3l I ILLWINA�TFo ATS 11- TEX OCFA F�fJICALL- INE moa 1161ANO wC iNSrF _ TI x ARE -ITm TO RESitx 1 coxsaRucrlON xor MORE n1AN Trn 111 zroR'El IN NEiGNr, iI w 611N oR 9R VET I'LL �BE�REN¢SII Ar ALL TIE nTE OF ^(0I J SONE: UB•= fb' A H, 0:34.0 Me", ERIC TRASIMT d ASSOCIATM 9511 IRVINE (ENTER DANE IRVINE, (ALFORNIA 91610 LEL 908611144 FA% 949061113] wvera7eslgn [am DOUG DEGIN6E5 .BAA ORANGE A-E I� 4 °s II9-rns z' RZGz, 43 F N ! LOT 6 A E PLAN IS I �I I3A 1 RIo�STORYHI�R My I Mvf:.mer•:FX SITE AREA CALCULATIONS 1 i 11GGND I OPEN 5PACE f33m 0) = 153800 SOFT, I � 5. 1.; `� oRIVEWAY ANo OPEN PARKING (9om B) = A. W -IT - - - - BUILon� cavERAVE rw oo aA =louse 9oFr. i J - 330.00_ ------------------- i----------- -_--__-___.-.i-____-_-_______ 1_� .i ■ !1 ■ 1 0 ,l Ii's 1 "" Lo llw� 1. Ml-� ; 1 1 - Up W 01:101 �r ffw I� 4 pill —Hn Ia T.— xMA H -ATM �? 1j I SITE NOTES ARAre -T Is —111 FORE euaolNG OR awE: EG. FENCE wuLs, a AININe wALLz. varaw unwOR 5X'�N"�IX; PooLS r s°A5 r�L� oROINww i 3 TB.POrNRY INGREYrEGRE55, STc PILIIYa AA ­ ,NG RtIrE APPROKNES A11O/OR RRLITY :NSTALLAn W.IN —11 RI WT OP WAT REdnRES wN ENCROAGwEM PE _ DE 005E STREET xMBER VISIBLE 1 LEGie%E II— IwH. BE NNN�� TIB FIXE a°6 "1H TIE AAGIB��N1:'" o k FOOnNG5 AT11- TI—L An M.5r BE BOARD FatMED ELInIxATE BOIL WER ANO ALL E Ob GOICRETE —T BE REroJEO FRIM TIE H+O.KT'-ATE�� RIS,RIn,RON 5:5,L� ��Ri r<ATE,T A�/GR GwG RED— -P NY PPRo N 5 REm REo F-E ER Lo wnoN oR 51 EOI G F REFIGN R UE ro A "�u.L BE FRO.nNEo wNR A uax Iw,< POR A NEY w� rRiCALLY OPERATEnI TO NLON cicrEc"5s :oV­ scnn�E TER cFc w3l I ILLWINA�TFo ATS 11- TEX OCFA F�fJICALL- INE moa 1161ANO wC iNSrF _ TI x ARE -ITm TO RESitx 1 coxsaRucrlON xor MORE n1AN Trn 111 zroR'El IN NEiGNr, iI w 611N oR 9R VET I'LL �BE�REN¢SII Ar ALL TIE nTE OF ^(0I J SONE: UB•= fb' A H, 0:34.0 Me", ERIC TRASIMT d ASSOCIATM 9511 IRVINE (ENTER DANE IRVINE, (ALFORNIA 91610 LEL 908611144 FA% 949061113] wvera7eslgn [am DOUG DEGIN6E5 .BAA ORANGE A-E I� 4 °s II9-rns z' RZGz, 43 F N ! LOT 6 A E PLAN IS I �I I3A 1 RIo�STORYHI�R Mvf:.mer•:FX I T� ai f rrrkl nnmSTGRYINI� �. � J _ W i J - 330.00_ ------------------- i----------- -_--__-___.-.i-____-_-_______ 1_� .i ■ !1 ■ 1 0 ,l Ii's 1 "" Lo llw� 1. Ml-� ; 1 1 - Up W 01:101 �r ffw I� 4 pill —Hn Ia T.— xMA H -ATM �? 1j I SITE NOTES ARAre -T Is —111 FORE euaolNG OR awE: EG. FENCE wuLs, a AININe wALLz. varaw unwOR 5X'�N"�IX; PooLS r s°A5 r�L� oROINww i 3 TB.POrNRY INGREYrEGRE55, STc PILIIYa AA ­ ,NG RtIrE APPROKNES A11O/OR RRLITY :NSTALLAn W.IN —11 RI WT OP WAT REdnRES wN ENCROAGwEM PE _ DE 005E STREET xMBER VISIBLE 1 LEGie%E II— IwH. BE NNN�� TIB FIXE a°6 "1H TIE AAGIB��N1:'" o k FOOnNG5 AT11- TI—L An M.5r BE BOARD FatMED ELInIxATE BOIL WER ANO ALL E Ob GOICRETE —T BE REroJEO FRIM TIE H+O.KT'-ATE�� RIS,RIn,RON 5:5,L� ��Ri r<ATE,T A�/GR GwG RED— -P NY PPRo N 5 REm REo F-E ER Lo wnoN oR 51 EOI G F REFIGN R UE ro A "�u.L BE FRO.nNEo wNR A uax Iw,< POR A NEY w� rRiCALLY OPERATEnI TO NLON cicrEc"5s :oV­ scnn�E TER cFc w3l I ILLWINA�TFo ATS 11- TEX OCFA F�fJICALL- INE moa 1161ANO wC iNSrF _ TI x ARE -ITm TO RESitx 1 coxsaRucrlON xor MORE n1AN Trn 111 zroR'El IN NEiGNr, iI w 611N oR 9R VET I'LL �BE�REN¢SII Ar ALL TIE nTE OF ^(0I J SONE: UB•= fb' A H, 0:34.0 Me", ERIC TRASIMT d ASSOCIATM 9511 IRVINE (ENTER DANE IRVINE, (ALFORNIA 91610 LEL 908611144 FA% 949061113] wvera7eslgn [am DOUG DEGIN6E5 .BAA ORANGE A-E I� 4 °s II9-rns z' RZGz, 43 F N ! LOT 6 A E PLAN IS I �I I3A I J ` W 1 ~ i ` =� isI0-.9 REVISIONS O R - Er / IT I UP I' pvwc OW ER n u xNLs Gw Es, a cEz r nws c axsRE u O G EX.� �wH,oT EKG®A•4• ABwE E,"9„FG NA,owL daAOE DOUG DECINCES Iz ,Raaf sRw IaE Xo,Xe+ci s OX ExcwvwTlws s FffT OX IX oaTm INIO rN.APHa5p1 i5 REPIx®i0 OFIAm:ort 'z siTXnweE z�r FARre Xo tVNE. 12 .n-.1 aBfwiX A KsfbMY PHeaT FR.OX STwTE t✓F CNYORHA PRpR r0 r1E f.IMx' Om9nN Li w 91LdIK as [pHg1µ SAF£m B w�w�X Rw�r�R RA.B w RYEGTRL wXLxnFLT.5E0/K1xLAL �EyRw�B.ff BKttffi( JOB ADDRESS GNAL BYSIGR�Aq, 61NOIN6 GOIITFAGTOR wT TIE SITE HxOR TO TIE C05TA MESA A 463, LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE FOOTAGE NOTES --T w°"`. � f-�9 ERn'h Lor nrsFA AF.11•�ax.. DESCRIPTION OF WORK FOOTAGE NOTES GAY - nIYE r lr n PROJECT DATA /I 1��•FrM xn AIW' N XM AT1nOC1fAx� N • •rM v11 !/ri zre AREA 6 rM b`I w7N6 _ •� •� )YM rNlR�ily� .SPACES EACN UHT >N N .�EA�.•Irr vn %� (3 MGMAf AW ZOx-5ITE1 SCALE /B'• - 1 W Ip. GrM T rPwlxixs f QIxDI1G TovavAAE H5m V - ro SAY [n swrr 2 g r ��EyfISl1f it PFL irMIit PFL fiM1 UNIT A ROOF PLAN UNIT A SEGONO FLOOR PLAN LNING - (149D sarr) —�Z , UNIT A FIRST FLOOR PLAN LNING - (11T1 50") 6AR,"S - (441 9GP1') MCC, TKADERT $ A 90CIATE9 ' iF�, I � %1�ray9M 4911IYIEEEN9ENANIYE NY LFAM MREN M 9491612264 FAX 9691617133 wVellkv}�m DOUG DEGINCE-5 MIE aas ms APPOOVEO SFYEE: - Zp & M1Y• n F PAW af.1...ro[6dvfc cul w•. ray •J9IEf not" -atm" 12122@91fa6w atrw I I [ INarrnw woo nw�a x.n rcv. Eo {—sioixss mo LEFT ELEVATION (UNIT A) LilI 1 RIGHT ELEVATION (UNIT A) f�-s ERIC TRABERT 4 ASSOCIATES UOU6 UEGINGES DALE ►1lM M REVISIONS STYLE ararro-1 U SCALE O SHEET ��I MTI tlA1MIS Ii1OJiIY. ENM1 UNIT B1 -A ROOF PLAN UNIT B1 -B ROOF PLAN UNIT 51-A SECOND FLOOR PLAN ADDENDUM UNIT B1 -B SECOND FLOOR PLAN LIVING - (1295 96TT) UNIT B1 -A FIRST FLOOR PLAN UNIT B1 -B FIRST FLOOR PLAN LMNS •("t 9nF7) SAFt 69 - (42"190") TRIG TRABBIRT 4 ASS=IATM I �r I 9511IAVN: (ENEEN DRIVE IRVINE CALIFORNIA 91610 TEL 9490612144 FAN:949B61713) _0 dmgn con DOUG DEL �5 3rn oRnxr� nvee�, ra rasa ca aze�� PPN119-ai�i3 DATE ol. 1— I(MIN. DRAWP.�r: n :HlF 5 nnN LUII VLaa3S w�9at wcrrka LEFT' F-L5VATION, (PLAN 51-A) --'.--- --_ --- ----'-------'--- -- --'--- ---'---'--'- - Lo [-10 1 RIC�HT ELEVATION (PLAN 51-A) REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 151-A) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN 51-A) FINISH FLOOR LEVEL PLAN Bl -A ERIC n"^ZIMT^^m=CI^TES MIMM(ENTERM utvKcmnm%61 Ift 16186122" FAN %986L2231 LEFT ELEVATION (UNIT 151) RIGHT ELEVATION (UNIT 81-B) ERIC TRABERT 0 A890CIATM 9521 OVINE EERIER DRIVE IRVINE CAMBODIA 91615 TEL 9495611244 FA%:949 MUM ry 'I'k"p run DOUG DEGINGE5 DATE APPROVED REVISIONS STYLE. 091wfl: JOB NO w N -m CMw�H SWE a _SHEET PL01 DAl /1 015 W6 rUl" KM UNIT 52 ROOF PLAN UNIT B2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN L.I - (1455 SGPT) -69- UNIT B2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN LIVING - M317 SOFT) AGG &AR - (44•f 90") CRIG TRA6GICT S ASS=ATG9 9521 IRVINE EON IEN DRIVE IRVINE, EALFONMA 91619 EL 108617244 FAAAMb I2231 — hdnp- DOUG DEGINGE5 slnl �vr •n IOEND as-��.•�•r.1� VAL SHIM PLOIPLOI DATE 4V IR]1. RAJIR]L RAJ REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 52) RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN 52) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN Est) FINISH FLOOR LEVEL PLAN 52-A FIRST FLOOR (F.F. 18.91) SECOND FLOOR (F.F. 90.02) PLAN 82-5 FIRST FLOOR (F,F. 18.31) SECOND FLOOR (F -F. 89b2) ERIC TRABERT 4 ASSOCIATES MIRYREEERRRRAYE RYAS EAIFDWA Ml TEL 9490612244 FA%9{99UD) wv etAd ptan DOW DEOINOES Axa oanrt� AVE�ae, A HESA, LA aNr31 AFNi 119 -v11 -H APPROVED emm IM . AAWIY J� _ aNO Raw nr•arxes SU 1/4•• Ib' K SHEET PLOT DATE 6/10/20154WA1 PM, ETA -3 GRIG TRABGRT 4 A55=1ATGB J 95216VIEEE81F MME OK.EAIFORMAU60 TFL 169861 24 4 FAIL 94916122 w,da&Wm VOUC DEGINGE5 z9w oaar.E wve�e �rw rsn, a 9mn , 119092-93 UNIT G SEWND FLOOR PLAN LMMS - (78107 sarr) (Oq UNIT G FIRST FLOOR PLAN LWIN6 - (7189 so") GARASK - (488 !!Citi) DAIS 0 m APPROVED. ALM—mi HM piFXll lf' tl MNI Nti_19�LlCaY.SA uuI •-1�• u10 PLOTDA2 VIlAAIS"0 OMM4 UNIT G ROOF PLAN —9O1� Bloc TRA®ERT A ASS=IATES Neter_ > 9521 IRVINE (ENTER DRIVE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 91618 TEL 9498611144 FA% 9498612133 uvx eladeslgn con DOUG OEGINGE5 66 rnun6e Ave9ew-, APN.rA r N CA 92621 119092-93 RATE olns�ols REVIAHI: T Am I.cJw•carKxf SuIF w•.rn• p TRASE VILMIS 1?JkM AUL IV" 3 ------- ------ ------ -H REAR SLIDIMMON (UNIT W LEFT ELEVATION (UNIT W WRIC, TKABEIRT 4 ASSOCIATES Tq lk /'IMMAOMB ": 1 1;61 fl, DOW, DECINGE5 RIGHT ELEVATION (jjNrr GrF rnnrn 14 w w 61 64 [JUDUE] FRONT ELEVATION (UNIT W Ulm I S(Al f SM21 12 Rai Uyl vio's k"J""AALUA4 .eta 80/21 y A 3 NI I r>rt/ ,� Brrr srwrw6R \�`, i�NU• CURB RP� 1 1. TvACF \O WILSON 'Y,-;1' WILSON STREET PA'Iclt LQT 2 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17870 A PORTIONOP 607 19e Cf TRACFNV 100.IN THE CITU OF C057A N,ESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE 0e CALIFORNIA. AS %+CPM304 A MAP RECORDED IN BOCK 14. PAGES 11 AND 12 OF MISMI-*WSMAPS. RCWU DS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. DATE OF PREPARATION: ry(oy 19, 2015 P.\dCEL 6 I16�s Awo rAwo ij�g4V/j[�1{�F[ ,/B I[ �'Ttl�F of y��l�n WALL.OmPL IR, ,a1�AIi1 \\ha Q rce .- II- TV£.SEM2ula R�I 1 F11 N1 - aft I�f No. 11011 s s h LOT l s 4744, f n rt� ]9 B]FF a�cr ann' S ,q � 15 Ll wt Aw LOT 19 1. TvACF \O WILSON 'Y,-;1' WILSON STREET PA'Iclt LQT 2 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17870 A PORTIONOP 607 19e Cf TRACFNV 100.IN THE CITU OF C057A N,ESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE 0e CALIFORNIA. AS %+CPM304 A MAP RECORDED IN BOCK 14. PAGES 11 AND 12 OF MISMI-*WSMAPS. RCWU DS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. DATE OF PREPARATION: ry(oy 19, 2015 P.\dCEL 6 I16�s Awo rAwo ij�g4V/j[�1{�F[ ,/B I[ �'Ttl�F of y��l�n WALL.OmPL IR, ,a1�AIi1 \\ha Q rce .- II- TV£.SEM2ula R�I 1 F11 N1 - aft I�f No. 11011 s s s s�s h 3 T LOT3 1T0 LOT4 6035F 36035E r T0.P Er ]]9 Pb k ,{ 1 PAD 17' n wr 3Mr 5f141F APR pj� 111 fl{ l` (1� lt`♦ [ � .�;.q n � mm 1 e' F`�V4-- I 1 r LOT6 P 40DU SF rely FF rFrP.0 rw[ UDFF �Vf onur 12' .1{r --_---- q— pm. I1'5w 0996• .... --..--330.DO'--f�-- -- --'-- •--- �I SNrL, Tt Y� LOT 13 l3Aae ImF.w9e SEND; NOTES: 0.623 GROSS AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 0.532 ACRESNET EX EMS N6 LAND NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR OVERFLOW RAV RNV FH FIREHYDRANT NO LAND OR PARKS TO BE DEDICATED FR'O/FCi SITES FS FINISHED SURFACE 7D' 5T LT STREETUGHTFEET PROPOSED LAND USE: SF SQUARE FEET TC TOP OF NRB v-smI CENTERLINE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: \\\ 139 -313 -OB CURB & GUTTER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: — DRAINAGE SWALE FRONT 20' SIDES 5' 4vni%,(TYAI — - - — PROPERTY LINE REAR 10' TYPICAL SECTION: ORANGE AVENUE LEGAL pE'i,3CRIF1'Iphi: NOTTO SCALE �IRI,�TI�IMlO"RY ,Tpjlj�iC7iI NQ 300,IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,CWNTY OF ORANGE, STALE OF WATER MAIN CKIFwm""S YGWrIWA WeECORDED IN BOOK 14, PA6E5 R AND 120E MIYHLANEWS MAPS, PL. a RECORDS OF ORANGE CWNTY, CALIFORNIA �ttm WATER METER BASIS OF BEARINGS: !r� THE BEARIN65 SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE BEARW6 BETWEEN TWO FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF ORANGE AVENUE BEING NORTH 39° 09' 00' EAST, PER TRACT N0.3033, MM. 89/26, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY D OWNER/SUBDIVIDER: . WALL EXIST. dM0E z =� 12SSTTRRAAWBBE ARM$ROAD IRVINE, CA 92612 A, SITE ir�0" Nls.aa,7.00{ J SITE ADDRESS: on-sT PCOST MAVENUE 6" LURE {' NRB & GUTTER COSTAAMESA [A 92526 SITE -ACIA6 OR PCL PAVEMENT FLOOD ZONE: 1 ZONE X. OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARIES -� ar NOSE: SW"� TYPICAL SECTION: DRIVEWAY ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES: • VICINITY MAP r6rTd�ni I \ NOT TO SCALE i 1 MINIMUM VEATICAL'$ARAi.S6N BETVEBJ FINISHED FLOOR AND FINISHED GRADE(SOIL) RAWF Z'�SiP"�� ! SHALL BE e' AUMBMUM RAWFTI: 0CY IMPORT : 0 [Y nMe&GurTER SECTION A f1I- - nr NOT TO SALE RWY- EXIST, NET WALL �1 � DIN & HAMERS & ASSOG, INC. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17870 SHEET EAx oflTsrge rxtaxrrrurr� w�mLe cokrANro[r�RT cnRERNu >•nlvx. CIVIL ENGINEERS TR�o9"SiY+i.-��V]I/2)PERO19/416 ]aA E IMTH STREET, U11 20 Q PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN tT6MM EASFM6NFT07I CVx11'FCFC.AN6FfL4RaAP yE5r�6G1R'1+.11.P10..713/119. Xai111D DA'A urs Cu•FwroA INT ITEM]- EASEMENT TO S.C.E. FOR POLES, ETC. RIC. 6/21/56 PER OR. 3559/496. A9 54E- 02 ITEM B- EASEMENT TO CITY OFC05TA MESA FOR SIRE ET& HIGHWAY PURPOSES REC. 2/4/60 PER O.R.. 5006/403. 2966 ORANGE AVENUE ITEM 9- EASEMENT TO CITY OFC05TA MESA FOR STREET A HIGHWAY PURPOSES REC. 4/2V60 PER OR 5206/409. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 SECTION B "-72,'� n DATE DEscR>PnaN 2/D417 NOT TO SCALE e �Ni�G43 DATE Oft PLANT LIST ,m. Laurus roEiia mavocaMa •� eau" co,�,d Na,I N,m Mapl�IdeMemNre LIN oI Ne Nlle M, MaMpbra Sp,l ZI Leme WM lre Pllbsporum aasxldlun wmpadum 5 pal fiB Dian Hao GrouMcover 9�sa OurMN Mldlow FNpa replene CYln's GaM' J'Flab N Carpel Bupb gm„eia mmpamue Qn Flab 11 gm,aaw, Pym. ra«a Ercpreen Pear I I 1 II III l I I I I I Sheet ® T-1 Scale: �. Title Sheet ` Of d fob N° 0000 PLANT LIST .......... 1sT .—.1 .. da Bare D,,e �nl v za ee.a a .. st.. oe."nry 1� 0 c.moa=, Na.l vwm om b..wv , 981 eoo y� 9bruba Lry 91x8 QuentlN Svel 77 9�r oI111e Nilenwae LGerge iN lns G 21 mporvm aziloLum wmpeclum Pxea Kem ere Moe tov 5981 fig Poea mo,e .ums ciem ' z1 reel Buglee w a'n.e as e� ,4 D - yo .mery * ^ Y ieirdv .1n1 On�•ez 5 Beey i�mrs VI^n.e �,i Dee^b e'zM1e wn.M St 6 (yryun nr(u.r 1A HARDSCAPE LEGEND L Smooth SandFinish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete 2, Smooth Sand Finish Dais 'Miami Buff Concrete Steppers 24531 J,nsanta Drive �.MissiDn V"J" C.4 92691 (949) 795 4181 S,. 0 l� a) U U ' U C: CIO U) i a) 0 > co 0 U Date 03.14.2015 Revisions 0t,ub,m15 €I I l iI tI Drawn By . 5.. I Sheet ® L-1 Sur 'It.. r -o Landscape Plan - Orange 2 Of 4 Job W 0000 i1111WROMEMti,1r HARDSCAPE LEGEND 1. SmoothSand Finish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete 2. Smooth Sand Finish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete Steppers ?4631 Chdsan[a Drive RtiswKl Y•ry•i. CA 92691 ",41 4881 KY, O u� a) Co C: ca U u) a) n > Ca 0 U Date 03.14.2015 Revisions 06.m2015 Sheet ® L-2 s,ae an r o Landscape Plan - Norse 3 Of ; Job M- 0000 ,i ,r_e 91ze OuanKN za eo. 1 wrt..r rcm i� iv— Pleienu0 acntlel ez 2Y aoz 1 It.. &�. Quen9ry Ketl9as com �.pm�eme gpb �eu�. i g sr oapi Neml P. ba.w 9luubs She Gumll j�ipt_ ApepenNuc O�.e�9r Seel � 9�t riN of me wti, Le�9e ie lne 5901 39 t7 pwea Kem szil0lmm mmp ium 5ge1 b Oroundporx 91ze Ouentll M21ow ryu9e rephna CelNn% Gienl' 4 Fi- JB carpel B.g1. DymO ry mlee Dia Flak I gmp�n� eew:a�l om Flele ro Baby r..m Vlnsa 91za Ou°^n Yh. wY� e 5 6wyee+Far ya r HARDSCAPE LEGEND 1. SmoothSand Finish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete 2. Smooth Sand Finish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete Steppers ?4631 Chdsan[a Drive RtiswKl Y•ry•i. CA 92691 ",41 4881 KY, O u� a) Co C: ca U u) a) n > Ca 0 U Date 03.14.2015 Revisions 06.m2015 Sheet ® L-2 s,ae an r o Landscape Plan - Norse 3 Of ; Job M- 0000 PLANT LIST Vbr 4'� K.v �eurei aiu �•� e..e... e.x HARDSCAPE LEGEND m. toxw..e s..Nr © CwnpeH Nele Plum I s. 22s 91e. gummy 911rvM �.I1N. B 21 U Neen.wx Ii— e 0— t.rv. w�a mo 5U.IL ®Lie.elrvmlew.. Iwenum Je9.n�a PmM u 59.1. 4 R}r.yum.:nr�'i �ii�o,-ra.+r Seal 22 DHeNKem (] n-a'plii.lep.inerc. i HewNwn Or.9newvx 9 20D 91e. Ouan11 Mel.w ry.g.mp(.na—m-- .r9.1 a.91. 4FLM 25 Dv.e.di..®m.rel.. maven 10 F ormo.e. NI 5.., .�-76,o, L .L 7r 7=7 'I. i axanR 1 21111 Chnsanta Dnve V.$-1 I V.11V. C. 92691 LINA 175 +Btl I PS; L- 0 0 U) (13 0 U U U U) 0 > (13 U) 0 Dat. 02.17.2015 Revisions 06.06. 15 r-�Dr— By Shea L-3Landscape Plan - Middle 4 Of 4 Job N- 0000 Al HARDSCAPE LEGEND I Smooth Sand Finish Davis'MamBuff' Concrete 2, Smooth Sand Finish Davis 'Miami Buff Concrete Steppers .�-76,o, L .L 7r 7=7 'I. i axanR 1 21111 Chnsanta Dnve V.$-1 I V.11V. C. 92691 LINA 175 +Btl I PS; L- 0 0 U) (13 0 U U U U) 0 > (13 U) 0 Dat. 02.17.2015 Revisions 06.06. 15 r-�Dr— By Shea L-3Landscape Plan - Middle 4 Of 4 Job N- 0000 Al A r% V--% A r7 5U�f ' iE[CIPEEREH I , C«Ll CREACCQ f C[FECEIpfR �� [E'ECEEEolFwi EAC@F@€CCE' I I I I I - -L �-A Maw QLWATON Flmi9 W PROW ffi"^ N NA 63-01 193pM7•M,3llAnd9 Rw4l�A7 99WR 0NAI90M (.3>33+U RWOIR 31.3VATON (ural! 61-A) 4. T9WA9'O99 4"A) r, duwATOR • NORU I}y G —99-0 .LIVAIgF . a.A+9ce me -A9 BRIG TRi6tl[T < I860GIA1'Cb I �f�bifYAf. (ALlA6k MINRFQ3I9FFUA39F RRL WFUA3A 9263 FFi 9{9A61II{6 FAX:R94I2233 vwtlN qu. DOW 051-NGE5 aee o� nw9.e. �n rr�. cn vaar woas3 BAFE OOfY6 AWWO e,tm PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEM-NT-4L MEMO MEETING DATE: JUNE 22, 2015 ITEM NUMBER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -17870 FOR A 6 -UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE DATE: JUNE 18, 2015 C. FROM: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714)754-5608 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov The objectives of this memo are to: • Provide Exhibit 131 from Public Services Department • Provide an update of public comments from correspondence received to date. • Provide copies of all public comments. Exhibit B1 Exhibit 131 is a supplemental exhibit to Exhibit B, showcasing Public Service Department conditions of approval for Tract No. 17870. Exhibit B1 was not included in the original staff report, due to Planning receiving comments and letter from Public Service Department after sending out the staff report. Public Record and Response Letters: Four public correspondences have been received to date as a result of the 10 -day public notice for PA -15-10. The four public correspondences have concerns regarding the 6 - unit project and request revisions to the project. A response letter from each resident is attached. Attachments: Exhibit 61 Public Record and Correspondence received to date Color Renderings of Proposed Project Distribution: Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Owner: Kings Road Partners LLC 12 Strawberry Farms Rd Irvine, CA 92612 Authorized Agent: Eric Trabert 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 �q � June 16, 2015 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBI T 81 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tract No. 17870 LOCATION: 2366 Orange Avenue Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 17870 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing parcel into six detached residential units. Tentative Tract Map No. 17870 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C,M.M.C.), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Section 13-208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 6. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. 8. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan, including four (4) feet clear around oructions in the sidewalk. PHONE: (714) 754-5335 FAX: ( 4) t54-5028 TDD: (714) 7545244 www.costamesaca.gov Planning Commission 2015 9. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 10. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $730 for street sweeping at time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. Full amount of deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 11. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map 12. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on-site or off-site. This study to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur unless a drainage easement is obtained from the adjacent property owner(s) 13. Ownership and maintenance of the private on-site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M. M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 14. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 15. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 16. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 17. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract 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 Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 18. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital -graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 19. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 20. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 22. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off-site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. —�1 Planning Commission 2015 23. Dedicate a 3 -foot public sidewalk easement behind existing right-of-way line on Norse Avenue. Ire y. a rba azeli. P. City Engineer (Engr. 2015/Planning Commission Tract 17870) P.O- BOX 1200 . 77 FAIR DRIVE . CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 . (714) 754-5245 City of Costa Mesa PUBLIC RECORD Date: 6/19/2015 Name: Doug Gorrie, Amanda Frazier, Robert Anderson, Alexas Reddin Address: 214 thru 226 E. Wilson Street Received by: Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner COMMENTS: (Use Back or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary) 1. Letter received 6/19/15 from Doug Gorrie (222 E. Wilson Street) with concerns over the PA -15- 10. Doug Gorrie also came to public counter on 6/16/15 to address concerns (letter enclosed), 2. Letter received from Amanda Frazier (218 E. Wilson Street) on 6/17/15 regarding concerns with PA -15-10 (letter enclosed). 3. Email received 6/18/15 from Robert Anderson (214 E. Wilson St.) with concerns over PA -15-10 (email enclosed). 4. Letter received 6/18/15 from Alexa Reddin (226 E. Wilson Street) regarding concerns over PA - 15 -10 (letter enclosed). 6-19-15 To: City of Costa Mesa Planning Department Attn: Ryan Loomis Re: Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 Site Address: 2366 Orange Avenue From: Doug Gorrie, Architect Residing at: 222 E. Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 With regard to the Design Review items a and b as referenced in the Official Public Notice, 1, Douglas Gorrie and my wife, Tuyet Mac fervently oppose approval of the requested Administrative adjustment and Minor modification. As suggested by Ryan Loomis of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Department, I have compiled a brief list of my concerns regarding the proposed project, which are as follows: 1. The proposed 6 -unit project, as designed, will cause permanent and incurable economic and functional harm to my property and to the other properties abutting this project. The units are 2 -story in height and located with a minimal 5 foot setback from our rear property line. As designed, the units would have full and unobstructed visual access to our property. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 1. Purpose, CD -7A.1 "Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles which reflect the City's diversity, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods." The project as designed is not in scale with the adjacent properties and essentially looms over our entire property. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 1. Purpose, CD -7A.1 2. "Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods, where residential development is proposed, require as a condition of approval that is consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that it does not have a substantial adverse impact on the adjacent areas." The project as designed will in fact have a substantial adverse impact on our home value, enjoyment, and the quality of our lives. 4. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 3. Second -Story Designs, 1. "Two story structures shall be designed with articulation and off -sets on all elevations to avoid a boxy appearance from the street and neighboring views." The project as designed utilizes a 2 -story, unarticulated vertical stucco wall, which directly violates the guidelines. 5. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 4. Building Mass and Form Considerations, 4. "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties." It is self evident that the as designed project effectively destroys the privacy of all properties abutting the south property line, and thus the project is in direct violation of the guidelines. Additionally, the project will block morning light, and create a noisy environment, due to the 5 foot proximity to our home. 6. The project does not provide any provision for screening by means of landscaping. In fact the project as designed is incapable of accommodating landscape screening because inadequate setback dimension to safely plant landscape screening without potentially undermining the foundations of the proposed structures due to tree root growth. The burden of providing and maintaining this screening is placed entirely on us, the affected property owner. The landscape screening would also encroach into our yard space and result in diminished use, thus to our detriment. The tree roots wood very likely continue undermine the foundations of the proposed units, which creates liability for us, the affected property owners. We the affected property owners would also be liable for any damage caused by the trees to the adjacent houses. The project does not provide any provision for screening by means of landscaping. In fact the project as designed is incapable of accommodating landscape screening because inadequate setback dimension to safely plant landscape screening without potentially undermining the foundations of the proposed structures due to tree root growth. The burden of providing and maintaining this screening is placed entirely on us, the affected property owner. The landscape screening would also encroach into our yard space and result in diminished use, thus to our detriment. The tree roots would very likely continue growing and undermine the foundations of the proposed units, which creates liability for us, the affected property owners. We the affected property owners would also be liable for any damage to the adjacent houses caused by the trees. 8. The project is designed in a manner wherein one house fronts Orange Avenue and another house fronts Norse Street. The 4 interior houses are rotated 90 degrees, wherein the front elevations face the common drive aisle and the rear elevations face the south property line, which results in the 5 -foot setback becoming an actual rear yard. The resulting condition is a virtual 20 -foot vertical wall fronting the rear of our property creating an unbearable eyesore. The affect this project will have on the usability and enjoyment of our home will be profoundly detrimental. Our home, which we remodeled in 2009, is designed wherein the living room, dining room, kitchen, nook, family room AND master bedroom all open onto the back yard. Our home is designed to comply with the 10 -foot rear yard setback requirement. Our home is designed with a continuous sliding glass doors and a full height window with a combined length of 35 feet. Virtually the entire east wall of our family room, kitchen, and nook area, totaling 24 feet, is sliding glass doors. Our redesigned master bedroom has a double French door that directly faces the proposed proj ect along our rear property line, We designed our home this way so that we could watch over our young children, and enjoy unobstructed outdoor views in the safety and privacy of our back yard. The residents of the proposed project will be able to view directly into virtually every common living area of our home including our master bedroom. The project will permanently and profoundly diminish the usability of our home. The protection of residents' privacy and access to light and air are why rear yard setback guidelines are established in the first place. 10. The Feasibility study performed by the project designer, Eric Trabert, does not mention or acknowledge the existence of our 4 properties that abut the project site. It is self evident that the affect this project will have on our health, safety and welfare was never considered or even contemplated by the designer or the city, as required by the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 4. Building Mass and Form Considerations, 4., which states, "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties." This fact alone confirms that the City will have fallen short in its duty to protect its residents if it approves this project, without requiring significant modifications to the proposed site design. 11. The planning department, by contemplating approval of the project, is violating the spirit of the City of Costa Mesa Development Guidelines in that the health, safety and welfare of all residents must be valued and protected. By the manner in which the project has been designed and conceived, the only party being protected is the owner of the proposed development. Virtually no consideration of our rights and needs have been addressed until this hearing. Consideration by the City of Costa Mesa to the adjacent property owners rights and needs must be made manifest in the proposed design itself. Otherwise, consideration will not have been made at all. The Residential Development Guidelines, is a document presumably drafted to protect all of the residents and property owners of Costa Mesa, whereby the built environment is the expressed physical embodiment of those principles and values. Solution to the Problem I have met Mr. Ryan Loomis and spoken with him at length regarding all of our concerns. I have prepared and alternate site plan, which locates the proposed 6 houses along the north property line of the proposed project. I will submit this site plan Monday morning as an exhibit. Our proposed solution recognizes the needs of the property owner of the proposed project to develop the property AND preserves the light, air, privacy, quiet, and quality of life for us, the residents whose properties abut this proposed project, Placing the proposed houses zoned R2 - MD along the north property line makes sense, because the adjacent property is also zoned R2 -MD. Additionally, by placing the proposed houses along the north property line, the value of our homes will be preserved, but most importantly, our quality of life will be preserved. Respectfully, Douglas F. Gorrie Architect LOOMIS, RYAN From: Tuyet Mac <lilratster@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:03 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 Dear Mr. Loomis, Thank you for meeting with me yesterday and listening to my concerns I have contacted two other homeowners and they are very alarmed about the proposed project as well. I will follow up with another email that summarizes in more detail my concerns regarding how this proposed project will ruin the privacy in our backyards forever and likely damage the value of our property and our neighbors properties. In the mean time, can you please email me the pdf plans that we reviewed yesterday. Per your suggestion, I will need them to prepare an alternative site plan, wherein the proposed houses are oriented wneie the rear yards abut the north property line, which is adjacent to another medium density parcel. When we met, you said this appeared to be a reasonable alternative. This solution will protect the needs of all adversely affected homeowners, white allowing for responsible, fair and reasonable development that benefits everybody, not just the developer. Best regards, Doug Gorrie .!W_- v-1- !W-- Gn 9 June 17, 2015 To: Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner RE: Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 Mr. Loomis, My husband and I bought our home in January of 2002. We bought it with love and excitement and the hopes of raising our children in the home. Our home has always been where our heart is and although my husband was called by the United States Army for active duty service due to the results of 9/11, we have always known that we will return to continue raising our four children. I write this letter on behalf of my husband and myself as he is currently deployed in Kabul, Afghanistan, The current plans for Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 are extremely disturbing to say the least. The set back from our back fence line is a few feet! The invasion of privacy, curtailment of sunlight and breezes is a travesty. I do not want to be sitting in my back yard next to my 20 year old hibiscus tree being stared at from an upper floor window mere feet away. Nor do I want my children subjected to peering eyes and the violation of their right to play in the privacy of our backyard. Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 is an egregious travesty. It is shocking that a house could arise mere feet from our back fence line. The impact on our privacy and property value is a horrific. We are one of the few houses in the area that has a second floor. Our second floor on the back of the house includes our most favorite room, our sunroom. A beautiful room with windows almost floor to ceiling covering three walls. The room is filled with sunlight and ocean breezes and views of the Disney Land fireworks nightly. The thought of looking out one of those windows to see a neighbor a few feet away at eye level is shocking. Will I be forced to install drapes and have them closed 24/7? Will my privacy be curtailed to such an extent that I can't enjoy the home we have had for 13 years and plan to own another 20? Will we feel like we are living in a tenement and can throw a laundry line to the back neighbors or, in today's age, a zip line as we are mere feet away? The project is supposed to 'exhibit excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development'. Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 ignores the integrity of privacy, sunlight, breezes of the homes on Wilson Street. The application as it stands today does not protect the integrity of our homes, its value or our quality of life. Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 states that 'second floor windows for Plan 132-A and Plan 131-13 will be offset to avoid visual impacts to the second story windows to neighboring properties' -- this sentence is talking about our property. Our second floor may be offset from the proposed construction but a portion of our second story will still have direct rear visibility into the master bedroom of one of the proposed units. As previously mentioned, our upstairs sunroom has windows on all three sides, not just straight to the rear. We will have full view of the bedrooms on the second floor of these proposed houses whether it is from the direct rear windows that span the wall or the windows that span each side of our room which inhibits privacy and aesthetics for all parties. 11P IF,e —Clow The application states that 'as of June 10, application PA -15-10 has not received a communication from any property owner located within a 500 -foot radius of the project site. Please note that we did not receive a notice in the mail until June 13`". If we had been advised of this project earlier we would have certainly raised any concerns we had. It is interesting that we received the notice a mere 10 days before the hearing before the Planning Committee. My husband and I are supporters of Costa Mesa and I have volunteered my time and effort on city committees. We are supporters of change and progress and when I was a realtor in Costa Mesa I welcomed new families into the community in to their new homes. We are strong supporters of growth, prosperity, and change in our neighborhood. However, the plans as they stand for application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 do not reflect or acknowledge the rights of the current homeowners. We respectfully request a revision of the plans such that the driveway for application No. PA -15-10 & TT - 17870 shift to our back fence line. The plans for the house would basically flip such that the driveway would be on the other side of our fence instead of the bedrooms. The currently proposed back fence setback is certainly not adequate to address the concerns of longtime homeowners and supporters of Costa Mesa. A slight revision of the setback isn't the solution either. The best solution for all concerned is to come to an amenable solution for all parties. We suggest the housing plans be flipped and to place the driveway along our back fence line. We support development but there is a right way and a wrong way to move forward on development. We trust the Planning Committee will choose the right way when taking action on this project. We strongly urge the Costa Mesa Planning Committee to DENY application PA -15-10. The project as it stands today "does not comply with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code or meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential comm unity....location of windows...." The development plan 'does not meet the broader goals of the General Plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development.' We appreciate your time. Respectfully, Amanda Frazier 218 E. Wilson Street 21P,�qe —q 1— Addendum Pictures from our 2"d floor sun room showing impact of current proposed plans. This sun room is a large room with three walls of windows. Rear facing view. Lots of windows, breezes, sunlight, and privacy. Rear and side facing view. 31.P ah e -q2- Rear q2 Rear facing view Rear facing view - qB- Rear facing view 5 1 P a g e Elm LOOMIS, RYAN From: Robert Anderson <havingfunatthebeach@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:12 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: Planning application Pa -15-10 and tentative tract map TT -17870 for a 6 -unite, detached residential Development at 2366 Orange Avenue Dear Mr. Ryan Loomis, I am the owner of 214 E. Wilson St. Costa Mesa, which is the corner property adjacent to this proposed development. My strong recommendation regarding Items 1 and 2 of this proposed project is that the application be sent back to its planning stages for revaluation and modification. I generally object to Item 1, the Planning Application PA -15-10. I object to Item 2, Tentative Tract Map TT -17870. Consisting of six Fee Simple Lots. I specifically object to the location of the lots within the subdivision. The property lines of the purposed subdivided lots and the two story PUD single family structures are within 5 feet of my property line. My Lot is zoned R1 and this project does not have significant setback between my property lines and the purposed development. If the purposed PUD structures were located on North East side of the lot at 2366 Orange Ave, Costa Mesa. Then I would have no objection to this development. I will be attending the meeting with my Contracted Architect, to further voice my concerns and objections to this project. Thank you, Robert Anderson 214 E. Wilson St. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (808) 747-3382 . Cls_.� June 18, 2015 Cole Reddin & Alexa Reddin 226 E. Wilson Costa Mesa, CA 92627 TO: City of Costa Mesa Building Division 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. 92628-1200 (Second Floor) We are writing this letter to address concerns that we have with a potential housing development behind our home at 226 E. Wilson Costa Mesa, CA 92627. We purchased 226 E. Wilson (our first home together) on May 21, 2015, and on June 16, 2015, a neighbor notified us about the proposed housing project. This was the first and only time that we were notified about the proposed plans. We have several concerns with regard to the proposed housing development: * Notification- As first time home owners it is very alarming that we did not receive any notice from the City of Costa Mesa or from the previous owners. We have invested our life savings into this home, and if we had known about the proposed plans prior, we may not have purchased 226 E. Wilson. • Damaging- We strongly believe that the proposed housing plans will be damaging to our quality of life, offer no privacy to our backyards, and will take away from the spirit of the community. It was our desire to move to Costa Mesa, where we could have a nice big back yard for our dogs and eventually children. If the proposed plans are allowed, and the (6) two-story homes, concrete wall, and private road are built, our home will be forever changed. We will no longer have privacy and enjoy our backyard. We are also very concerned about noise- The private road, guest parking, and garage doors will be an issue all around. • Property Value- It is our concern that if that proposed plans move forward, this could potentially lower the value of our home and the others on Wilson Street that backup to the new development. If the proposed property setbacks are allowed and the concrete wall, road, and two-story homes are built, our property would decrease in value dramatically. The desire to have a private backyard will no longer exist for future buyers. We completely understand that new homes and developments must continue to be developed. The City of Costa Mesa has been making remarkable strides to make the city better, and a destination for young new families, which is why we bought our home here. We would like for the City of Costa Mesa to consider the homes owners on Wilson Street that will be affected by the new development. We ask that you consider our privacy, quality of life, and the value of our homes when making decisions on this matter, Thank you Cole Reddin & Alexa Reddin s - F% • R 1'r.: ��C• ..tit •r'�,2 rtT r'iENip .. jj�j +■ �� . *, I . ' ..-.rY.y.yryi- � �-rte ••yr, le, m Fpp-pl"- � Irl.. . V.�_•'T� .. �- ^ �r�� . � �� • - 1� 1 '_1 VIEW FROM NORSE AVE. jwyr 1 `Xil ov I I _ P! 5.x:3 •���* .�: ! Mr • .�•� � � . •, fir• � ► .� .' '�• �� I •f ~ „"V ��.'}• 1� � i- .�`� r --w i : t _ qq�r�=S': fir• _ "ld,�y:i _ ,+C_ . - _ - ._.r ."�.• _ _Ai'�r •'"?:_r`=t'+, yf.. r. ��� � �, �. . - .•`T � � y1`} � 'r �-'{y. � � f''r _ - �r �_�. 3 • _ ter, � • _ ri;i ✓!. : , 7+. VIEW F ROM ORANGE AVE. ` � , • T..err.. a; ��N• s<•;� .• `" : 5-• �y .�, .ice �' ' � '5�... / �� y. .�eV'• r• L� � - ..a ,{� i Agdo ?H,!) LOOMIS, RYAN From: Tuyet Mac <lilratster@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 1:58 PM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: PA -15-10 Attachments: Planning Application Summaries.pdf Dear Mr. Loomis, Please find the attached Planning Application Summaries document. I have extracted the Planning Application Summary page from each of the ten document files that you provided me, which represents the most recently approved projects. I have highlighted in yellow the zoning for the adjacent properties on each Planning Application Summary. In all cases, the adjacent zoning for parcels directly adjacent to the subject properties was either medium density, high density, commercial or other like zoning Based on the examples you provided, in no instance was a medium density project directly adjacent to low density zoned properties approved. All we are asking for is to relocate the proposed houses to the north property line, which abuts another medium density parcel containing an apartment complex. We are simply requesting the proposed medium density project to be placed adjacent to another medium density property, thus abutting like property zoning together. This will give us, the four affected low density properties, some separation and relief. I believe this is fair and reasonable. Please also refer to the Proposed Conceptual Site Plan I sent about 30 minutes ago Best regards, Douglas Gorrie, Architect — 100— PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2294 Pacific Avenue Application Number: PA -13-35, TT -17705 APN 422-051-001 Request: Design Review of a 5 -unit residential development with small lot subdivision. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MD North; Open Space - Fairview Park General Plan: MDR South: Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: Multi-Famlty Residential Lot Area: 20,869 0.75 acre West; -Mult[-Fam!IZ Residential Existing Development: One parcel developed with 5 apartment units T Lot Area Maximum Density: Lot Coverage _ open 5PCe Private Open Space v ---�_ Height _ Setbacks: Front JtaqficAvenue - Side _ - - - — — - 12.400 5F 12 units per acre 0.47 acre 20,473 Sq. M. 11 units per acre -- 12,401 SF tBQ°Ia] _ 8.288 301/6) 11.600 57°Ia1 - - 8.797 SF +43% —500 SF min. �,20 SF Twn §biles 127 FT 28 I" r -- _ _ - -- 20 FT 12-11�` _ 10 FT 5 FT •• Rear 10 FT 10 FT Landscape Setback_ 10 Ff' _ 10 PT-- —T Distance betwBulldings_ _ N/A 8 FT_ een --3'a of 21w R= to 1" door — 1100% 92°!a Parking T Twa garage space and two open Two garage space and two open spaces per unit _ spaces per unit Total _ f� 40 spaces _ �_ _ +� s aces Nitn. nri l.en�th: _ 19 feet The reduction on street setback is subject to approval of an administrative adjustment "" Side yard setbacks could be reduced to 5 feet subject to certain findings - see staff report —i Final Action Planning Commission CEQA Review Exempt, Class 32. infill Development Projects —(U— PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 320 E. 18th Street Application Number: PA -14-05, PM -2013-178 APN: 117-251-36 _ Request: Design Review of a two unit residential development and a parcel map to subdivide the lot feta two, fee-simpleparcels- SUBJECTPROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MD North: I&R - Lighthouse Coastal Community Church Parkin Lot General Plan: MDR South: R2 -MD - Muld-FamilyResidential Lot Dimensions: 63 FT x 153 FT East: AR - Parking Lot Lot Area: 9,683 square feet _ West: I&R - Multi -Family Residential Existing Development: Vacant lot Ito] [aA11 "I Lot Lot Size Common Lot u1in. Open Space (Individual Unit) illding Setbacks: Front _ Side(f!Eorthwestl - Side Sauiheast] Rear Between Buildings �Ik�Mass- % ratio of 2nd to 1 st flaor (< nit tq 1st f6aar(Unit oms or more) Total Driveway VVidth _ Priv@way Length Interior Garave Dimensions CEGIA Review SON - SMALL LUT NA Maximum 2 Units I du/3,630 SF (12 DU/ NA Two -stories / 27'-0 NA No common lot required; CC&Rs are required. 200 SF No dimension less than 10 ft, --- 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. No minimum ta disn_ce required subject to compliance with Building and Fire Code standards. 100% _ —__ Two garage and two open stalls 8 s aces 19 ft. 20 ft, x 20 ft. 9,683 SF (grass 2 Units _ 1 du/4,842 SF{9 DIUTAcrLa) _ 4,279 SF/4,842 SF _ 2 stories / 22'-4" gRQA - A ARA SF CC&Rs shall be filed. 615 SF Unit 1 630 SF Unit 2 No dimension less than 10 ft. 20 ft. loft 34 ft. Complies with Building and Fire Code standards 71% _ _ 81% Two garage ana two open stallsT _ 8 spaces 12 ft. � — — 20 ft. Min. 20 ft, x 20 ft. Planning Commission Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 Exemption Construction of three or fewer single-family homes in urban areas and Section 15315, Class 155 Minor Land Divisions _ 1 and 2 The 10 -foot setback can be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings (see staff report). The Residential Design Guideline requiring an average sideyard setback of 10 feet does not apply to structures less than 2,700 square feet in size. 102= PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location; 1944 Church Street Application Number, PA -14-07, PM -14-115 APN: 426-263-09 Request: Design Review of a two unit residential development and a subdivision map, SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MD North: R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential General Plan; MDR South; R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: 80 FT x 137 F East: R2 -MD Mulli-Famfly Residential Lot Area; 10,975 square feet West: R2 -Mid _Mu_ Iti-Famil _RY esida-nlfe_i _ Existing Development: One parcel with a single family residence Lot Area _ NIA (Per SLO) _ 10,975 SF -W 0 e__ 2! s�ce 3,293 SF - 30% minimum 6,746 SF - 61 % _ _ Medium DensResfdo�tial Land Max. 12 units per acre _ 8 units per acre Zane - R2 -MD Max. 3 dwelling units 2 dwelling units 1 du/3,630 SF 1 du/5.488 SF 8Uflai nq Fieiht Two -stories / 27 ft. 2 storieslmaximum 27 ft Distance between main buildings No. Minimum/SL0 20 ft. Building Setbacks, _ _. _ Front_ (Church A_venua_ )_- Y 20 ft, _ �, _ 20 ft Side j l Street} 10 ft. 13 ft. _ Side 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear - - --- -- 10 it – __----- - - 0 -ft -- ----- --- - ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Unit 1)_ 100% W Y 71% % ratio of 2nd floor to Tit floor (Unit 2� 1006 61 % Driveway Length 19 ft. 26 ft, Parking Two garage and Two garage and two open per unit two open per unit Total 8 spaces 8 spaces Final Action Planning Commission CEQA Review T Exempt, Class 3 for new constructlon or conversion of small Ian -d- divisions res anal PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 389 Rochester Street Application Number: PA -14-12, PM -14-113 APN: 425-021-18 Request: Design Review of a two unit residential development and a subdivision map. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R_2 -MD North: R2 -MD Multi-FamilyResidential General Plan: MDR South R2 -MD Mulll-FomlIy Residential Lot Dimensions: 67.5 FT x 160 FT East: i&R Ner er School & Park Lot Area 10,101 Square leaf _ West: R2 -MD Multi[•Famlly Residential Existing Development: One parcel with two single family dwellings Lot Area Denskv residential'Land Use - kone- R2 -MD Building Height y Distance between main buildings 3.030 SF - 30% minimum _ Max. 12 units per acre TMax, 2 dwelling units 1 du/3,630 SIF 4 Two -stories 127 ft. 5,497 SF - 54% 12 units per acre 2 d�relGng units 1 du/5.050 SF _.- 2 stories 127 ft. Justin Avenue] _ _ 20 ft. 20 ft, _Front Side( Rochester Street) _ _ Side 10 ft. T 10 ft. 20 ft. _ 10 ft_ _ 10 fL- Rear - _ ... 10 ft Rear Rna Stof N/A 20 ft ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor 100% 74% Driveway Length 19 ft. Two garage and two open per unit - " - — 19 ft - -- _ Two garage and two open per unit Parking Total 8 spaces f 8 spaces Final Action lanninq Commission. CEQA Review t.Class32 for in -fill development -�61- PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 1631 and 1645 Tustin Avenue Application Number: PA -14-18, TT -17647 APN 425-192-10 Request: Design Review of an 11 -unit residential development with small lot subdivision SUBJECT PROPERTY, SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MD _ North; -Multi-Family Residential General Plan: MDR South Multi -Family Residential_ Lot Dimensions: 200'x 200' East: Multi-Farnl!y Residential Lot Area: 40,000 SF 0.92 acre West: Anale-Family Residential Existing Development: One parcel developed with 14 apartment units Lot Area Maximum Density: Lot Coverage en Space - - -- _ 12,000 SF 12 units per acre 48,004 0% - 12.000 L30%� _ _ 40.000 5F (0.92-acre) 12 units per acre 26,078 SF L65 13.822 C34n 310 and 215 SF 2B'-9" FT Private Open 8 ace 200 SF Height _ Two Stories 127 FT rt 20 FT _ 10 FT_ _ _ FT _ T �5 FT — NIA Setbacks: _ Front (9 Ie Street} Side Tustin Avenue).- Rear10 Landscape Setback _ 10 FT 10 FT 5 FT -- - 6 Fr _ Distance between Buildings % of 2W floor to 1" floor Parking ToleiW 100% - Two garage space and two open spaces per unit One open parking for up to units with no open parkin g45 spaces 25 feet 94% and 99% Two garage space and two open spaces per unit and one additional parking _ 45 Spaces 23 feet allowed with 18 -feat wide drives Min. Driveway Width: Final Accton ] Planning—Commission CEGA Review I Exempt, Class 32, infill Development Projects -165- PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2661 Orange Avenue, APN 439-221-35 Application Number: PA -14-26, TT -17791 Request: Design Review of a five -unit small lot subdivision. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MD North: Multi -Family Residential General Pian: _ MDR South Multl-Family Residential _ Lot Dimensions: Rectan ular East: Multi -Family Residential Lot Area: 19,800 0.45 acre West: Multi -Family Residential Existing Development: _ One parcel devela ecl with four apaiiments !five units permitted, one maybe combined DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON - SMALL LOT ORDINANCE Lat Area ­ . Maximum Density(based on Common Lot Requirement a. Lot Sizes Paving NA NA rer1� - 12 Unita acre 1 DU 13.630 SF No common lot requifec; _ CCBRs and Maintenance or Homeowner's Association are required NA Minimum Open Space (Individual Unit) Build rf 61 - Distance between Buildings sulbament Lot Front Side t7eRlrigt� _ Rear _ Sulk/Mass of wo-Ston Resldence_ • ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor Unit M. 18 _• ratio of 210 floor 1o_111 floor Unit_1 C)_ Parking for single-family d4ached13 - Guest Total Garage Dimensions Min. Driveway Length Parkway Lands Final Action CEQA Review 8$ FT 19,800 SF - - 11 units per acre 1 DU 14.026 SF CC&Rs and Association to created. 3,129 SF Min 13,957 NA 10 - NA 1 0 - .. 5.940 SF 0°A _ 6121 S0(31%) - — NA -- - 2005F - ^-- 310 SF+ 10 FT Min. Dimension 10 FT Min. Dimension Two Stories 1 Max. 27 FT Two Stories 126 FT No minimum distance required, 10 FT total _ subject to compliance with (Complies with Building and Fire Building and Fire Code Code Standards) standards - - 20 FT--_ -- - 115FT'- 10FT110FT 9FT2/6FT2INand 5FT6IN3 - _ 10 FT 5 FT" " - 1o6% -� - - 97% and W6% — 3lopment Pr2jects ' The reduction of the front yard setback Is subject to approval of a minor modificatlon z Side yard setbacks could be reduced to rive feet subject to certain findings - see staff report 3 Side yard setbacks could be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings - see staff report 4 Rear yard setback could be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings - see staff report 5 Variance requested to parking design standards requested ° Variance requested to reduce the parkway landscaping to 2 feet on one side. 7 Residential design guideline for second floor average sideyard setback is not applicable for units less than 2,700 sq.ft. 10 - 'l 0 1 0 - .. - ---- 1- - 1 -- 21 spaces _ 20 FT X 20 FT 21 spaces 22 FTX 49.33 FT' - 19 FT 19 FT le FT --- 16 FT J 3 FT min. on one side; 2 FT min. on one sides 10 FT total 10 FT total _ 3lopment Pr2jects ' The reduction of the front yard setback Is subject to approval of a minor modificatlon z Side yard setbacks could be reduced to rive feet subject to certain findings - see staff report 3 Side yard setbacks could be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings - see staff report 4 Rear yard setback could be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings - see staff report 5 Variance requested to parking design standards requested ° Variance requested to reduce the parkway landscaping to 2 feet on one side. 7 Residential design guideline for second floor average sideyard setback is not applicable for units less than 2,700 sq.ft. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 119 Cecil Place Application Number: PA-14-28/PM-14-140 Request: Desiqn Review of a two -unit residential development and a subdivision map. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MD North: R2 -HD Mufti -Family Residential, Commercial use General Plan: MDR South C-1 Local Business, Commercial use Lot Dimensions: 61 FT x 140 FT East: R2•M0 Muiti-FamilyResidential Residential Use Lot Area: _ 8,476 SF T West: R2 -MD Multi-Farnity Residential, Residential Use Existing Development: One parcel with a single family residence to be demolished). DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON - SMALL LOT ORDINANCE Devel2gment n ar I Remii_redJAllowe_tt Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width NA 61 FT Lot Area NA 6,476 SF xlmum Density_(based on DU's/ Acre (Residential) mmon Lot Requirement i./Avis. Lot Sizes Minimum Minimum Open Space (Individual Unit) Chimne Hal ht Distance Between Buildings Front Rear Rinq for du/3,630 SF (12 DU's/Acre) Maximum 2 units No common lot required; CC&Rs are required. NA NA NA 2,543 SF 30% NA 200 SF Min. 10 FT Min, Dimension 2 Stories/Max, 27 FT 2 FT Above Max. Bldq. Ht. No minimum distance required, subject to compliance wlth Building and Fire Code standards bedrooms 18,476 SF (10 DU's/Acre) Proposed 2 units CC&Rs to be filed. 7 SF Min./4,238 SF Avq. 2,724 SF (32%) 1,852 SF (22%) 3,900 SF (46%) 8,476 SF (100%) 370+ SF 10 FT Min. Dimension 2 Stories/Max.27 FT NA 10 FT (Complies with Building and Fire Code standards) 20 FT _ _ 22 FT 10 FT/10 FTf _ 5 FT/5 FT 10 FT 16 FT Garage 14 1 4 ! Onan 1 4 1 4 TOTAL 8 Spaces 8 Spaces Driveway LenSth _ _ Min. 19 FT _ _ Min. 19 FT Interior garage dimension 20 FT 20 FT (1) This setback can be reduced to a minimum of five feet on a case by case basis per CMMC 13-42, See staff report for more discussion. NA = Not Applicable or No Regy(rgrnent CEQA Status Guidelines Section -i 5303/Ciass 3, New Construction of three or fewer single-family homes in urban areas and Section 15315/Class 15, Minor Land Divisions Final Action Planning_Commission �I� I� PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 334 East 16th Street Application Number: PA-14-45/PM-14-144 Request: Deslgn Review of a two -unit residential development and a subdivision map. SUBJECT PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -MC General Plan: Lot Dimensions: Lot Area: Existing Development: MDR 60 FT x 135.07 FT _ 8,104 SF One parcel with a sir SURROUNDING PROPERTY: North; R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential, Residential Use _ South: R2•NID Multi -Family Residential Residential Use East: R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential, Residential Use West: R2 -MD Multi-FamtlyResidential, Residential Use le famliv residence (to be demolished). DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON - SMALL LOT ORDINANCE DeveloAmr�, Standard Re_ ulr d/Allowed ftpos-ed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width _ Lot Area NA 60 FT 8,104 SF NA Maximum Density based on gross acreage): DU's/ Acre (Residential) 1 du/3,630 SF (12 DU's/Acre) Maximum 2 units 1 du/4,052 SF (10 DU's/Acre) Proposed 2 units Common Lot Requirement No common lot required; CC&Rs are required, CC&Rs to be filed. Min,/Avg. Lot Sizes NA 1,297 SF Min./1,401 SF Av . Building Coverage iDevelopment Lot Buildings NA 2,827 SF. 35% Paving NA 1,542 SF 19% Minimum Open Space 2,431.2 SF (30%) 3,735 SF 46% TOTAL NA 8,104 SF (100%) Minimum Open Space (Individual Unit) 200 SF Min, 10 FT Min, Dimension 1,000+ SF 10 FT Min, Dimension Building Height 2 Stories/Max. 27 FT 2 Stories/Max.27 FT Chimney Height 2 FT Above Max. Bldg. Flt. NA Distance Between Buildings No minimum distance required, subject to compliance with Building and Fire Code standards 27'6" FT (Complies with Building and Fire Code standards) Setbacks (Development Lot) Front 20 FT 20 FT Side (left/right) 10 FT/10 FT' 5 FT/5 FT Rear 10 FT 15 FT Parking for single-family detached/3 bedrooms Garago 4 4 Open 4 4 TOTAL 8 Spaces 8 Spaces Driveway Length Min. 19 FT Min. 20 FT Interior garage dimension 20 FT f 20 FT (1 ) This setback can be reduced to a minimum of five feet on a case by case basis per CMMC 13-42. See staff report for more discussion. NA = Not Applicable or No Ile uirement CERA Status Guidelines Section 15303/Class 3, New Conslructm of three or fewer single-family homes in _ urban areas and Section 15315/Class 1.5, Minor Land Divisions Final Action Planninra Commission -109' PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 162 E. 1a'^ Street Application Number; PA -14-50, PM -15-109 APN; 425-231-03 Request; Design Review of a two unit two-story residential development and a subdivision map. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2 -HD North: R2 -HD Multi -Family Rosidential. High Density General Plan: HDR South: R2 -HD Multi -Family Residential, High Density R-3 Multi-FamN_Residentlel Lot Dimensions; 50 FT x 125.25 FT f East: _ R2-1-10 Muiti-Family Residential, High Density Lot Area; 6,263 square feet West: R2 -HD Multi -Family Residential, High Density R-3 Muhl -Family Residential Existing Development; One parcel with two unit one-story residential development - Lot Area Open space (development lot) Open space individual unit) Density: Hitt Density Residential Land Us Zone — R2 -HD Building Height 7€stance between main buildings 3uilding Setbacks: _ Front (181" Street) €tear (Aputting a FuoiiCiy Uedicatei Alley) _ _-619 � ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor Unit 1 ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor )Unit 2 12,000 5F new lots or No minimum per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 1,878 SF - S0% of total lot area per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 200 SF with no dimension less than 10 feet per Small Lot Subdivision Standards Max, 20 units per acre 1 du/3,000 SF (14.52 dulac ) Max. 2 dwellinq units Two -stories /27 ft, -- _ No Minimum /SLO 10 ft. f 0 ft. 100% Two garage and two open per unit Total 8 spaces CEOA Status Guidelines Section 15303/Class 3, New Construction of-ii urban areas Final Action I Planning t^,omrtlssion I� Unit 1- 2,775 SF Unit 2- 3,488 SF 41%- 2,579 SF Unit 1- 202 SF Unit 2- 206 SF 13.91 units per acre 2 dwelling units 27 ft. 10 ft, _ 5 ft. (Unit 1) 10 ft. (Pnit 2)- 5 ft. 5 ft.- 6 In. 87% 20ft 7 in. (Unit 2 only) Two garage, one covered and one open (Unit 1) Two garage and two open (Unit 2) 8 spaces or fewer singe -family homes in PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Locallori: ' ti124 Orange Avenuo Applioutlon NumBer PA I S QB APrd: 425.201.03 Re t: ____ _ Design Ravlaw of a two unit two-story residenilal devolo ant. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: _ Zone I -_._.r Norlts R-3ultl-Family R-11 81 ' I R2 -HO General Plan: PDC Planned Deve_ Iypment Commercial R-3 Multl-Family Residential HDR Lot 04menslons: •3ultl-Family 75 FT x90 Lot Area: Local Business DlstrMcl 0.750 3 E 5xisling Development One parcat with one ui Subdivision Standards C1 Local Business District PDC Planned Deve_ Iypment Commercial R-3 Multl-Family Residential R2 -HD Mull)-Farnily Residential. F119h Fenslly •3ultl-Family .Residential 1 Local Business DlstrMcl DEVELOPMENT TA ARD COMPARISON FOR SMALL LOT SUBIDIVISION Lot Area No minimum per Small Lot Subdivision Unit 1- 3,600 SF Standards Unit 2- 3,150 SF Open space (development lot} 2,065 SF Unit 1 (57%) 30% of local lot area per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 1,553 SF Unit 2 (49%e) Total= 3.618 SF (54% Open space (Individual unit) _ 200 SF with no dimension less - Unit 1.276 5F- (min dfinens onTof 12 than 10 feet per Small Lot feet.) Subdivision Standards Unit 2- 308 SF - (min, dimension of 12 feet. 10 in.) Densly. High Denaily Residential Land Usel R240one 1 du/3,000 SF (14.5 DU's/Acre- 1 du/3,375 SF (13 DU's/Acre- 2 Units Total) 2 Units Total) Huilding Height Two -stories 127 R. 26'-11 %" (Unit 1) _ 2(3'•9 k" fp x) - -- - 9 ft. Isbelweun main Iwlidings__ No Minimum 151.0 _ _ !T Building SetbaAks: (Dsvglopmenl L_aty �- - Front pran a Ave Lnit ly 20 ft. 19 ft., Side (street -side) (16- Place) 10 . ^' 15 ft, nit 1 19 ft. Unit 2 Side interior ' _ _ _ Unil 1- First Ffnor 5 ft, Unit 1- Second Floor It. 5 R. Unit 2- First Floor _ S ft. 5 ft. Unit 2- Second Fleur 5 ft. 24 ft. _ _ Rear �inlerlor _ _ � _ _ � _ NA Unit 1- First Floor _ v 14A _ Unfit 1. Second Floor _ _ NA NA - - - WA 2- First Floor 1.0 ft, 9 ft.' —Unit 2- tSecand Floor 10 ft. 9 % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Unit T1— 100170 54% • ralfo of 2nd Roar to 1 at floor (Unit 2) 100170 48% Dr[veway Length 19 ft. T � 19 ft. (Unit 1) _— - 18 ft. (Unit 2)1 R Parking Two garage and two open per uitlt Unit 1 -Two garage and two open Unit 2 -Two garage and two open Total 8 apoces T 8 spaces _ , Finel Accton Planning Commission CEt7A Review_ Exempt, Class -3 for new conatructlon or conversion of small structures Minor Modlficallen regWiml• 7 Puhlb 3ervknn mqulraa t -lout Ad—A oo.ereonl alemd 161h Ploco 16 fool dnf .y I"Ih minimum par Trolnpa,tnllon Servlaee 7 The — aaheah of 10 l001 woo adnplod Par Ordlno,m 16 03 an—JIN Tlllo 10, Chaplor V. Md. 2 6, Peeidonllol Smell Lot SWMd", al Iho Coale Mona ldwddpM Cede elfedlvo Moy 21, 2015 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: PA -15-10 From: Tuyet Mac [mailto:dfgorrie@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 2:56 PM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: Re: PA -15-10 Dear Mr. Roomis, The following is the requested summary to go along with the Proposed Conceptual Site Plan. To: Planning Commission Re: Application No. PA -15-10 & TT -17870 Site Address: 2366 Orange Avenue From: Douglas Gorrie, Architect Residing at: 222 E. Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 I, Douglas Gorrie, have created an alternative Proposed Conceptual Site Plan to demonstrate that the proposed project could be designed wherein 6 houses can be placed on the parcel, while protecting the light, air and privacy of the four properties located along the south property line. Other reasons for requesting this change to the site plan are as follows: 1. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan will protect the interests of all property owners, which is fair and reasonable. 2. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan will protect the privacy and quality of life for the families who live in the single family low density homes to the south of the project site. 3. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan maintains the scale of the neighboring adjacent houses which are predominantly single story. 4. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan provides visual relief and actual separation from the medium density project. 5. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan mitigates the incurable functional and economic harm to us, the homeowners, that will be caused by the project. 6. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan complies with the City Guidelines, which state "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties. The as designed project will block our morning light increase unwanted noise and severely diminish our quality of life. 7. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan mitigates the need by us, the homeowners, to screen the project from view, because adequate separation will have been achieved. Any reasonable development would provide or contemplate screening to adjacent properties. The as designed project does not provide for any screening from its side, but requires the affected homeowners to screen the project. 8. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan abuts the proposed medium density development with the existing medium density apartments, which are directly adjacent to the north. 9. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan is designed to embody the "SPIRIT OF THE PLANNING GUIDLINES', which is to protect all the residents and property owners and to promote the health, safety and welfare of all. Respectfully, Douglas Gorrie, Architect ut Ilk 1�60 C'v-ANGE AUE 1 r' Z14 E We OW sr E WiLX)N sr R-1 ZINE �1 ZONE ZZ2 E WM4 N ST R 1 Z. -)"E -112- r L2b rn�ScN ST R_1 ZONE K-- LuN ErTuAL-STE r AN s� /A ; u�N gv: U- '(,LAsDOFF-ae. AQc.NITENT