HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 - NB-2 - GPS-11-02/ UMP-11-01 at 743 W 20th St - 8/2/2011CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 2, 2011 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN SCREENING GPS -11-021 URBAN PLAN SCREENING UMP -11-01 FOR
PROPOSED 4 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 743 W. 20TH STREET
DATE: JULY 19, 2011
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: MINOO ASHABI, SENIOR PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MINOO ASHABI, SENIOR PLANNER
(714) 754-5610, mashabi(ftixosta-mesaxa.us
RECOMMENDATION
Accept or deny General Plan amendment and Urban Plan screening request for
processing.
Council feedback and action is required in order for the proposed project to proceed.
Most importantly, feedback is needed on the following issue:
• Does Council wish to consider an amendment to the existing General Plan Policy
which currently does not allow "rounding up" when calculating the number of
permitted residential units?
BACKGROUND
Project Site
The proposed project is located at the southeast corner of West 20th Street and
Wallace Avenue (Attachment 3). The site is 8,492 square feet in area, zoned R2 -HD
(Multiple Family Residential), and designated as High Density Residential. There is an
existing single-family residence on the property.
The site is also located within the Residential Ownership Urban Plan area which allows
a density bonus of up to 20 dwelling units an acre for qualified projects on. a minimum
one -acre sized lot, subject to discretionary approval.
Proposed Project
The proposed project submitted for screening to the City Council involves the following:
1. General Plan amendment to allow residential density calculations to be rounded to
the next whole number.
2. Urban Master Plan for redevelopment of a residential parcel with a 4 -unit detached
residential development in the Urban Plan area. The proposal does not meet the
Urban Plan minimum lot size requirement or lot consolidation objective.
The project site is zoned R2 -HD, which would allow up to two units for the 8,492 square
foot lot. Pending compliance with the Urban Plan's standards and objectives, the
Urban Plan allows a density bonus of one additional unit, or a total of 3 units. The
proposal is also seeking a General Plan amendment to allow rounding up to the closest
whole number. This action requires a text amendment to Land Use Policy LU -2A.6
(Attachment 2).
Table A — Comparison of Maximum Allowable Units .
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment/Urban Plan Screening
The screening request involves discussion of the following issues, as highlighted below:
Policy direction from Council is needed to consider an Amendment to the General
Plan Policy which currently prohibits rounding up. The City Attorney's office
verified that allowing residential density to be "rounded up" to the. next whole
number would require a General Plan amendment for R2 -HD zoned properties.
General Plan Policy LU -2A.6 specifically prohibits "rounding up" numbers in the
density calculations. Currently, the General Plan does not offer any exceptions to
the calculation of maximum allowable residential densities for the R2 -HD zone,
regardless of extent of the shortfall in the square footage of the lot area.
"Land Use Policy - LU -2A.6 — Do not allow "rounding up" when calculating
number of permitted residential units except for lots existing as of March 16,
1992, zoned R2 -MD that have less than 7,260 square feet in area, and no
less than 6,000 square feet, where density calculation fractions of 1.65 or
greater maybe rounded up to two units. (Costa Mesa General Plan, Land Use
Element, adopted January 2002)." [Attachment) ]
Proposed proiect does not meet the General Plan screening acceptance criteria.
Council Policy 500-2 sets forth the criteria to evaluate General Plan amendment
requests. Council takes action on whether or not a proposal should be accepted
for processing by using these criteria as guidance. The proposal technically
does not satisfy the General Plan amendment acceptance criteria, since the
07,
request applies to a single small lot or a small area, especially if the change
would make the property inconsistent with surrounding properties.
It is important to note that Council may accept an application which does not
meet the criteria if it finds there are overriding reasons to do so.
Additionally, acceptance of a proposal for screening is not a commitment to
approve the General Plan amendment. This action represents that Council
would like to consider the request for processing, and subsequently explore
alternatives prior to making a final decision on amending the General Plan.
Proposed development incorporates the flexible development standards and 1 -
unit density bonus allowed by the Urban Plan, subject to discretionary approval.
The Urban Plan allows a density bonus for R2 -HD zoned properties from 12
dwelling units per acre to 20 dwelling units per acre. In this case, the Urban Plan
allows a density bonus of one unit to promote ownership housing in the Westside
(2 units allowed per existing zoning; 3 units allowed per Urban Plan).
The small lot development offers a new housing type with detached three-story
units and private open space. It is in contrast to the surrounding multiple family
units, typically developed in the Westside.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to providing general feedback on the proposed project, City Council would
need to take action on the General Plan amendment screening request.
1. Accept processing of the General Plan Amendment request and the Urban Plan
Screening. This will require amending the General Plan to allow rounding up and
the project to proceed with four units (a deviation of 220 SF or 3% from the
minimum lot size)
2. Deny General Plan Amendment request from further processing. Denial of this
request would allow the applicant to proceed with a proposal as an Urban Plan
project with one -unit density bonus (3 units total), and not a two -unit density bonus
that would require a General Plan amendment (4 units total).
FISCAL REVIEW
Fiscal review is not required for this item.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has considered the proposal and determined that a General
Plan amendment is necessary in order for the project to proceed as proposed.
CONCLUSION
In order for this project to proceed as a 4 -unit development, Council would need to
support consideration of the proposed General Plan amendment request to allow
1.
"rounding up" when calculating the number of permitted residential units (i.e., from 3.9
to 4.0).
If the General Plan screening request is not accepted for processing, the proposal may
move forward with a 3 -unit development as allowed by the Urban Plan, subject to
approval. As an Urban Plan project, a proposed 3 -unit development does not require a
General Plan amendment.
� ('mow(:�-,
MINOO ASHABI, AIA
Senior Planner
Attachments: 1. General Plan Policy
2. Council policy 500-2
3. Vicinity Map
4. Applicant's request and submitted plans
cc: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Manager
City Engineer
City Clerk
Staff (4)
File (2)
Bryan Coggins
The Preface Group
5000 Birch Street, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
File: 080211GPS1102 I Date: 072911 1 Time: 11:30 a.m.
I/
ATTACHMENT I
Costa Mesa General Plan
and configuration of parcels experiencing development
pressures.
LU -2A.2 Continue to implement, review, and update the redevelopment
plan for the adopted project area.
LU -2A.3 Prepare a specific plan to ensure that the portion'of the Route 55
extension from 19th Street through the Redevelopment Area is
compatible with the Redevelopment Area and to review
development related issues on the remainder of the alignment.
LU -2A.4 In the event of damage or destruction, . allow any legal
conforming use in existence at the time of adoption of the
General ,Plan that is located in a nonconforming development to
be rebuilt to its original building intensity, as long as any such
rebuilding would not increase the development's nonconformity,
and the damage or destruction was in no way brought about by
*intentional acts of any owner of such use or property.
LU -2A.5 Develop standards, policies, and other methods to encourage
the grouping of individual parcels to eliminate obsolete
subdivision patterns and to provide improved living environments
while retaining the single-family zoning or single-family character
of such areas in the City.
LU -2A.6 Do not allow "rounding up" when calculating the number of
permitted residential units except for lots existing as of March 16,
1992, zoned R2 -MD that have less than 7,260 square feet in
area, and no less than 6,000 square feet, where density
calculation fractions of 1.65 or greater may be rounded up to two
units.
LU -2A.7 Allow creation of parcels without street frontage if sufficient
easements are provided for planned developments or common -
interest developments.
LU -2A.8 Encourage increased private market investment in declining or
deteriorating neighborhoods.
LU -2A.9 Pursue maximum use of utility company funds and resources in
undergrounding existing overhead lines.
LU -2A.10 Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are
applied to all new development and significant redevelopment
projects that are subject 'to the NPDES Stormwater Permit,
during the planning, project review, and permitting processes.
LU -2A.11 Avoid conversion of areas particularly susceptible to erosion and
sediment loss (e.g., steep slopes) and/or establish development
guidelines that identifies these areas and protects them from
erosion and sediment loss.
LU -2A.12 Preserve or restore areas that provide water quality benefits
and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota.
LAND USE ELEMENT • PAGE LU -55
ATTACHMENT
CITY a, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
POLICY EFFECTIVE
SUBJECT NUMBER DATE PAGE
PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 500-2 11/3/86 1 of
-Rev. 8/1/94
Background
The General Plan constitutes the official policy of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa with regard to physical
development of the City. The City Council may, at its option,
amend the General Plan or any element thereof. On August 2,
1982, the City council enacted Resolution 82-65 adopting
"General Plan Administration and Implementation Policies and
Procedures". These procedures provided- that regularly scheduled
General Plan review hearings would be held at the first Planning
Commission meeting in February, June, and October. Since that
date, State -Law has "been amended to allow elements of the
General Plan to be amended four, rather than three, times during
any calendar year. Due to the increased workload on Staff,
Planning Commission. and City Council resulting.from the review
of General Plan Amendment applications, the City council wishes
to review the type and number of such applications prior to
acceptance for processing.
Purpose
It is the purpose of this policy to:
1. Establish dates for the hearing of General Plan
Amendments..
:2. Establish guidelinesto assist the City Council in
providing direction to Staff with regard to processing
privately initiated General Plan Amendment
applications..
Policy
Privately initiated General Plan Amendment applications shall be
heard at the first Planning Commission meetings in February,
June,;and October. A fourth date for the hearing of General
Plan Amendment applications may be assigned by the City Council
at its discretion for either privately. initiated or City
initiated General Plan Amendments.
The City Council shall review applications for amendments to the
General Plan and shall direct Staff to either proceed with
processing of the applications or to return all materials to the
applicant and refund the, application fee. A list of
applications, including the name of applicant, location of
R
CITYOFCOSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
C.OUNCIL�POLICY
POLICY EFFECTIVE
SUBJECT NUMBER DATE PAGE
I PROCESSING OF GENERAL •PLAN AMENDMENTS 500-2 11/3/86
i
Rev. 8/1/94 2 of 2
property, and request shall be submitted to the City Council by
the Planning Staff" in sufficient time to be heard by the City
Council at the second Council meeting following the application
deadline.
The following criteria shall b used as guidelines for the City
Council to detetminlec, which applications will be accepted for
processing. An application should be accepted if:
® A General Plan Amendment is necessary to resolve
inconsistency between General Plan designation and
zoning.
• A General Plan Amendment is necessary to provide a
uniform land use designation on a single parcel or
development site.
® A General Plan Amendment would result in decreased
traffic impacts from the property...
An application for.amendment to the General Plan should not be
considered if:
® The request applies to a single small lot or a small
area, especially if the change would make the property
inconsistent with surrounding properties.
• The property is located in the Redevelopment Area
(requires action by the Redevelopment Agency to amend
the redevelopment plan).
No General Plan Amendment shall be accepted which would increase
the overall, City-wide development cap. However, General Plan
Amendments which would' result in development exchanges or
transfers, may be considered.
As these are simply guidelines, the Council may deviate from
them if there are other important reasons for accepting or
rejecting a particular, application.
1
.._ E d L �_-�l+�4� �� �! �{ iia Tt,-t _ _ . r� .�.-�+.r-�-r�,�..- �•,4 �L �.�... d W... •y.'t ly....
1 $�
.
ilk
AS �; I & ap 1 k
d � _
t $ # ul 1
uEMT �'
— _ - �a.t - � i�.f, 'S•kr - `�- �c..� ... _ _ __ _.i, a q , e 1 '��` I Y
y7'Y"= F DPa-*}",`'
sifr}. � t r"s,�,,'E-. •+..�,...:�: �x -• �!- n�. s f! t a r..?Ir'le � '`U� s 1, r L ��. ;,L 3 u�ei' w! � t� f r � {. e.��,ir` �} ' ?S y �, f71
P' t : � P _ u t• t . I I �., t^�2tlg�'N � Jt. ' of ''� t
Y
i3 iy
� >•• J � S -�m�-� a -� '.K�}' � moi` :I� � 3. �'"nr..
for
-
r
.+ f
tt
{ L
pr � 4 � tl S 1 ``� r% i' 1 tk• S �.
�.
D
GP
`� THE PREFACE GROUP
- METROPOLITAN LAND DEVELOPMENT -
July 7h, 2011
TO: Mayor Monahan
Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer
Council Member Bever
Council Member Leece
Council Member Mensinger
RE: "Quattro" - a new Urban Plan project
C ATTACHMENT,
Attached herein, please find our City Council Screening Application for Quattro, a fee simple, for sale,
single-family detached, residential project in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan.
The project resides at the corner of Wallace Avenue and 20"' Street, just one block East of Placentia
Avenue. This is a high-density area that has been neglected by multi -family landlords, and has not seen
new residential ownership development in more than forty years. While this project is risky from an
economic standpoint, we feel strongly four detached homes, with superior and modern design excellence,
can be successful. As you can see from our site plan, each home has four parking spaces, private
backyards, 3 bedrooms and a roof top deck to take advantage of the panoramic city and mountain views
this site has to offer. The homes front the street, offering an inviting an interactive atmosphere typically
found in low-density neighborhoods.
The immediate economic impacts of this project to the local community include more than $500,000.00
to pay local contractors, $40,000.00 to the city's parks, $12,000.00 to local schools, and more than four
times the property tax revenue generated by the property today.
We'd like to thank City Council Members, Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff for offering small
land owners and developers of small projects, the opportunity to approach them when an Urban Plan
project may not fit perfectly within the city's residential development standards. We look forward to
creating another project to benefit the city's Westside.
Sincerely,
C
C
Bryan Coggins
5000 Birch Street, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA, 92660 [P] 855.PREFACE [F] 866.864.8671 [W] prefacegroup.com
N
The Pre6ce Group LLC Copyright @ 2011. All rights reserved.
R
IF I
ff
.j! ljq
V
R-1 " �I g''gg'
MIT
�.. .3 #�.e : L ly IIr�III �•�II \. 'f ii ik :!
. �
Illyll..,n_: rU 9i I rr
ti si t � t`7"�li I' I°I�1111r�r;. M1I zd� k �
n
� � �� ,- I Tec, �� •� I .II� if �GGf I ,
t 'l rt�: dlj� Wfl l I1L` I,l��l
s f 1 7
I I
Il I I:
n
I�
1 IF r
I
w
i
,z
N
N
,OL
z
O
3
a
a
W
O
z
H
v)
z
cn
wN
F z
E
a
W K+
F
Q
•-� �JW
Q
O..
3
u
mow''
v?
F .�-t
O WO
O
LL
U w
a
cn
w
`n
vi
V, vi v)
-
H
CD
Q
ai w
o
`n � o
Qz
v
Lr
co
`°
oU')
Mco
CO
N
co co
O
z
®cn
W
s
U
O
q
C7
w
a
cl�®
O
O
s
® 8
__
-
a
W
O
Rwi
[�
Q
L�sj
Q
F
rhh
z
2
z
N
vJ
W
O
p P11
zs�
a
cn
V)
En
Q
N
a
E5
O
N
N
,OL