The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15 - NB-3 - Urban Master Plan Screening Request - 10/1/20191 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2019 ITEM NUMBER: NB-3 SUBJECT: URBAN MASTER PLAN SCREENING REQUEST (UMP-19-01) FOR AN EIGHT-UNIT DETACHED RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE DAT E: SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: NANCY HUYNH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NANCY HUYNH (714) 754-5609 nancy.huynh@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback on the proposed eight-unit detached residential common interest development within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. REQUEST: Urban Master Plan 19-01 proposes eight detached residential condominium units in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan (“Urban Plan”). The subject properties are two separate legal parcels under the same ownership that abut each other. The combined 0.43-acre site contains five residential units (four attached and one detached) and two detached two-car garages. The proposed development would involve demolition of the existing units and construction of eight detached residential condominium units, each with an attached two-car garage. The proposed condominium units would each be four stories in height (three stories plus a roof terrace level). The proposal includes three different floor plans for the proposed units, ranging from 1,600 to 1,628 square feet in area, each with two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, and one powder room. BACKGROUND: Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan On April 4, 2006, the City Council adopted the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The subject properties are located within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. The objectives of the Urban Plan include the following: 2 • Promote economic viability in existing medium-density residential areas by encouraging construction of residential condominium projects that will add vitality to the neighborhood. • Strongly encourage the development of owner-occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership opportunities in the City. • Revise development standards that may facilitate condominium conversion or new construction of ownership housing to realize the vision of the Urban Plan. The Urban Plans allow development flexibility in exchange for quality projects that meet the Urban Plan vision. Such flexibility may come in the form of deviations from required development standards, if approved through a Master Plan. In this case, the applicant is proposing eight detached condominium units for homeownership consistent with the goals of the Urban Plan, along with several requested deviations. Should the project move forward, a Master Plan would be required, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. PROJECT CONCEPT: Urban Plan Summary Sheet As has been noted, the 0.43-acre site is currently developed and contains five residential units and two detached two-car garages. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing structures and construction of eight new detached condominium units. The two separate legal parcels would be consolidated as one lot and then subdivided for condominium purposes via a Tentative Tract Map. Access to the proposed development would be from Meyer Place along the west property line and from Anaheim Avenue along the east property line, via a single shared drive aisle. A Summary Sheet containing more information on the project can be found in Attachment 2. Residential Density The General Plan designation for this site is High Density Residential and the site is located within the Multiple-Family Residential, High Density (R2-HD) zoning district. The High Density Residential designation in the General Plan and the Urban Plan both allow a maximum density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre on the project site. The proposed maximum density of the overall project is 18.77 units per acre which complies with the Urban Plan and General Plan. Had the project not elected to pursue development under the terms of the Urban Plan, the base R2-HD zoning would have limited development of the two parcels to a maximum of six dwelling units (one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet). 3 Building Height The maximum building height allowed under the Urban Plan is three stories/45 feet. The project proposes four stories (three stories plus a roof terrace level) at a total height of 31.5 feet per unit. The proposed overall building height complies with the maximum allowed of 45 feet but the number of stories would exceed the allowable three-stories. The roof terrace is considered another building story since this particular Urban Plan does not specify exceptions for roof terrace levels (unlike other Urban Plans e.g. Mesa West Bluff and 19th West). Notwithstanding that the Zoning Code defines an open roof terrace as a story, from a building bulk perspective the project units would resemble traditional three-story homes with a flat roof/roof terrace and would be over 13 feet below the maximum height limit. Proposed Parking The Zoning Code (Table 13-85) requires a minimum of 20 parking spaces (eight covered and 12 open) and four guest parking spaces for a total of 24 required parking spaces. The proposed project would provide a total of 16 covered parking spaces in the attached two-car garages and eight open parking spaces that would be located between each unit at the surface ground level, for a total of 24 spaces. TABLE 1 – PARKING STANDARDS Unit Size Required Parking Provided Parking Two-bedroom unit (Eight units total) • Occupant Covered: 1 per unit • Occupant Open: 1.5 per unit • Guest: 0.5 per unit • Occupant Covered: 2 per unit • Occupant Open: 0 per unit* • Guest: 1 per unit Total • 24 Parking Spaces (Eight covered; 16 open) • 24 Parking Spaces (16 covered; eight open) * Per Table 13-85, open tenant parking spaces may be provided as covered parking. Architecture/Design The proposed project features contemporary architectural style and finishes. The design incorporates projections and articulations to create visual interest such as second floor balconies along the front façade, second floor offset from the first and third floors, and green decorative trim over the second and third floor windows. The main exterior material would be stucco in neutral color tones (gray and white) while the roof would be metal standing seam in a brown color. The elevations would also have different siding materials in varying shades of neutral colors (brown, tan, taupe) such as horizontal wood panels along the second and third floor as well as stone on the first 4 floor. The finishes of the units would include metal railings on the roof terrace/second floor balconies and opaque glass garage and entry doors. The detailed conceptual plans regarding the architecture and design can be found in Attachment 3. EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT: This Urban Plan screening process is intended to address the following issues: 1. Does the project meet the City Council’s expectations for projects in the Urban Plan areas? The screening process is an opportunity to determine whether the project concept meets the City Council’s expectations for new projects in the Urban Plan areas before the applicant submits a formal Master Plan application. This residential project is proposing a density and building height that would only be possible by utilizing the standards set forth in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan (six units and two stories would otherwise be permitted under the property’s R2-HD zoning). The Urban Plan allows for deviations in exchange for high quality ownership housing projects, when approved through a Master Plan. 2. Does the City Council have comments regarding any requested deviations? The screening process highlights requested deviations from the Urban Plans so that the City Council can provide feedback. The proposed Master Plan would include several deviation requests from the R2-HD residential development standards/design guidelines as well as from the Urban Plan standards as follows: Deviations from the R2-HD development standards/design guidelines: • Required open space (required 40 percent; proposed 20.7 percent); • Garage dimensions (required 20 feet by 20 feet; proposed 20 feet by 19 feet-2 inches and 19 feet-2 inches by 19 feet-2 inches); • Second-to-first floor ratio (recommended 80 percent; proposed 108 percent); and • Parkway landscaping along the common drive aisle (required 10 feet; proposed 4 feet-8 inches). Deviations from the Urban Plan standards: • Building height/number of stories (three stories/45 feet allowed; three stories plus roof terrace level/31.5 feet proposed); and • Minimum lot size (required is 1.0-acre; proposed is 0.43-acre). Please refer to the Urban Plan Summary Sheet for more information regarding the requested deviations (Attachment 2). 5 PUBLIC NOTICE: The screening process allows the applicant to consider the City Council’s initial comments and to refine the development concept based on City Council feedback prior to submittal of a land use application for review. No decisions are made; therefore, public notice is not required. However, when the project is reviewed by the Planning Commission, appropriate public noticing will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City’s environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (general rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the urban plan screening – which only requires feedback from City Council – will have a significant effect on the environment. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Because the screening process allows the applicant to consider the City Council’s initial comments and to refine the development concept based on City Council feedback prior to submittal of a land use application for review, and no decisions are made, there are no alternative actions for the City Council to consider. FISCAL REVIEW: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this agenda report and approves it as to form. CITY COUNCIL GOALS & PRIORITIES: The proposed project is consistent with City Council Goal No. 2 (Improve our Neighborhoods and Quality of Life) and City Council Goal No. 4 (Housing). The project would redevelop two underutilized residential zoned properties into one larger residential development with eight dwelling units that would provide more housing opportunities in the City. CONCLUSION: The screening process enables the City Council to discuss a project at the preliminary planning stage and to consider and provide feedback to an applicant as to whether a 6 project meets the City Council’s expectations for new development in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. The City Council’s comments do not set precedent for approval/denial nor constitute final action on a development project. In addition, the applicant should expect the Planning Commission to have other comments/concerns on a proposed development concept that may not have been raised by the City Council. The screening process allows the applicant to consider the City Council’s initial comments and to refine the development concept based on City Council’s feedback before moving forward with a formal application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback on the proposed eight-unit detached residential common interest development within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. Attachments: 1. Location Map and Zoning Map 2. Urban Plan Screening Summary Sheet 3. Applicant Letter and Conceptual Plans Property Owner: Equimex Holdings, LLC 6055 Jeffrey Mark Street Cypress, CA 90630 Applicant: Steve Jones P.O. Box 1003 Garden Grove, CA 92842 Bill Jager 872 Wendt Terrace Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NANCY HUYNH BARRY CURTIS, AICP Associate Planner Director of Economic and Development Services KELLY TELFORD, CPA KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW Finance Director City Attorney