Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout- NB-1 - UMP-11-02 at 2070 Maple Ave - 9/6/2011CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: URBAN MASTER PLAN SCREENING REQUEST FOR UMP -11-02 FOR SIX DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 2070 MAPLE AVENUE DATE: AUGUST 25, 2011 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: WENDY SHIH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: WENDY SHIH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER (714) 754-5136; wshih(ftixosta-mesaxa.us RECOMMENDATION Provide feedback on the proposed six -unit detached residential ownership project (Attachment 3) within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. BACKGROUND Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan The property is located within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. On April 4, 2006, City Council adopted the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan to allow incentives for the development of ownership housing. The intent of the urban plan is to provide development/economic incentives for private property owners to reinvest and remodel their properties. Project Site The 13,500 square -foot (0.31 acre) property is located south of Hamilton Street, on the east side of Maple Avenue (Attachment 2). The property is zoned R2 -HD (Multiple Family Residential) and has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. The site contains a 1,350 square -foot nonconforming building currently used as a residence (formerly school and daycare facility). The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area allows a density bonus of up to 20 dwelling units per acre for qualified projects on a minimum one -acre sized lot. Under the current R2 -HD zone; the maximum density allowed on this property is four units (14.5 units/acre). The applicant requests approval of a density bonus for six units (20 units/acre) on this 0.31 acre lot. Any deviation from the Zoning or Urban Plan standards may be approved through the master plan subject to specific findings. EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT This urban plan screening process will address the following issues: 1) Does the project meet Council's expectations for projects in the Urban Plan areas? The screening process is an opportunity to determine if the conceptual project meets Council's expectations for new projects in the urban plan areas. Council will be providing initial feedback to the applicants. 2) Does Council have any comments on any requested deviations? The screening process will highlight any requested deviations from the urban plans to Council's attention. The screening process allows the applicant to consider Councils' initial comments and to refine the development concept based on their feedback. A one-page, project summary sheet is attached (Attachment 1) for reference. CONCLUSION The screening process enables Council to address the central question about the proposed development: Does the project concept meet Council's expectations for new development in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Plan area? Council's general comments does not set precedent for approval/denial nor constitute final action on the development project. In addition, the applicant may expect the Planning Commission to have other comments/concerns on a proposed development concept that may not have been necessarily raised by City Council. The screening process allows the applicant to consider Council's initial comments and to refine the development concept based on their feedback. ENDY SHI KHANH NGUYE Associate Pla er Interim Develop X Services Director Attachments: 1. Urban Plan Screening Summary Sheet 2. Location Map 3. Applicant Letter, Site Photos and Conceptual Plans cc: 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: 090611 UMP1102 I Date: 082511 1 Time: 10:15 a.m. 3 ATTACHMENT -I UMP -11-02 SIX -UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2070 MAPLE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The proposal involves the demolition of an existing, nonconforming structure (formerly school and daycare) and construction of a six -unit, single-family detached common interest development in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. The proposed units are 1,635 square feet each containing four stories, which includes a roof deck, and two -car garage. The project will provide additional home ownership opportunities in the City (Applicant Letter, Attachment 3). The proposal involves the following: Complete demolition of existing structure. Construction of six four-story, detached homes (1,635 square feet per unit) with two -car garages. • Contemporary architecture. EXISTING LAND USE CONTEXT The 13,500 square -foot (0.31 acre) site is zoned R2 -HD (Multiple -Family Residential, High Density) and has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. The site contains a 1,350 square -foot nonconforming building currently used as a residence. The property is surrounded by R2 -HD zoned properties to the east (apartments), north and south (single-family residences). The properties across Maple Avenue to the west are zoned R1 (Single -Family Residential) and contain single family residences. TRAFFIC EVALUATION The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan provides incentives for ownership housing by allowing density bonus of up to 20 units per acre. The proposed density complies with the maximum density allowance under the urban plan, subject to a master plan approval, and is consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts are associated with this project. However, Transportation Services does not support the three drive approaches proposed. For this type of development, they recommend one drive approach. The two additional drive approaches will significantly impact on street parking, which is in high demand in the neighborhood as well as ingress/egress safety. y Per the development standards, Transportation Services cannot support a drive approach that exceeds 50% of the total frontage of the property up to 36' maximum. They suggest rotating the garage doors to face the common drive aisle, keeping the guest parking in the setback next to the garage, and placing landscaping between the parking and the sidewalk. Staff can work with the applicant to find a beneficial solution to the parking arrangement as part of the master plan process. SCREENING 1) Does the project meet Council's expectations for projects in the Urban Plan areas? The screening process is an opportunity to determine if the conceptual project meets Council's expectations for new projects in the urban plan areas. Council will be providing initial feedback to the applicants. 2) Does Council have any comments on any requested deviations? The screening process will highlight any requested deviations from the urban plans to Council's attention. DEVIATION FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Urban Plans allow development flexibility in exchange for quality projects that meet the Urban Plan vision. In this case, the applicant is proposing six detached single-family homes for homeownership. The final development plan does require approval by the Planning Commission. Council may wish to provide feedback on the following requested deviations: A seven -foot rear setback for the upper floors will require a deviation request. Code requires a minimum 20 -foot rear setback for two-story structures. Lack of common driveway parkway landscaping will require a deviation request. Code requires a total of a 10 foot wide landscaped parkway along driveways. Project proposes a roof deck, which Code identifies as a 4th story for zoning purposes in the R2 -HD zone. The Urban Plan allows a maximum of 3 stories. _6� , il� Il IT+• GI -� I� ( {, ry� �� t e� ? s7 7�1��n� _a �7 �+ ��f+c"u ,.•nvF t I � j 1 _ Fq.: 1�3-. RP ,—i.■ lu'1 ,i9j i.7 f, -'�`Fo" Ae { WK, fI 999 .77 t� CC ��.•� vy{ •Y f � � I f� ��'��� S�q U; �1 I`—i �.� � P 1 5 CJI• M •..yl iC 4 r rtT ' -V t �sf _� cl I �t�t �,J h• .rl _ -+� y"�t� ,y. T ' Ik 3a t � ,-4 a ,t II It ,i - .�. � F1 I�. II d�£. r'� � j� •I.1 yj@?: �! - '•�( it ! � . �" ��t'` L � ,ly ���� �� r _ _ 14. k�• 4 ,7 I Tpp � I p "U ems{ * IF i R 111 f , •44 R, >=si:.��.:�:s�-4���;},�,ir�,� � *s f[ � I �' rt P� if y, . _ .. S y � 1 I . d , l n ` tl`^ f ir,_ - - Y � __ �-4f • fie.' 777 fl±r, 1 s:� r 1, i ATTAC H M E N T 3 - ` ~ TRE PREFACE GROUP - MUROPOLITAN LAND DEVELOPMENT - August e, 2011 TO: Mayor Monahan Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer Council Member Bever Council Member Leece Council Member Mensinger RE: Urban Plan Screening for "Poet's Place" We are pleased to present Poet's Place, a fee simple, for sale, single-family detached, residential project in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The project resides on Maple Avenue, just a few lots North of Hamilton Street, and two blocks West of Harbor Boulevard. The East half of Maple Avenue, in its entirety, has a General Plan zoning of high- density R-3. An old preschool resides on the site, but the property's current use is residential income. The detached homes are relatively large, and have been designed to live comfortably on a narrow lot. Our efforts to purchase adjacent properties were unsuccessful. Private yards, 3 bedrooms, ample parking, and roof decks will bring new, sophisticated buyers to the city's Westside. Property tax revenue, school fees, park fees, and other economic benefits to the city will be significant, as the project will remove a non -conforming pre-school and replace it with six custom homes. The site is a short walk or bike ride to Triangle Square and the other amenities offered on both Harbor Boulevard and West 19'x' Street. We've included a short article from the Register, dated July 26h, 2011, demonstrating Costa Mesa's prominence as the most walkable city in the county; this project is a testimony to that impressive distinction. Si ely, Bryan Coggins 5000 Birch Street, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA, 92660 [P] 855.PREFACE [F] 866.864.8671 [W] prefacegroup.com 7 0 &GISTER.Com, Costa Mesa most `walkable' city in O.C. July 26, 2011 113y ALEJANDRA MOLINA Costa Mesa has been deemed the most walkable city in Orange County by Walk Score, a Seattle -based site that rates areas based on their proximity to nearby amenities. The Walk Score ratings gave Costa Mesa a ranking of 71.6, a score indicating that residents are able to take care of most errands on foot. The site ranked unincorporated North Tustin as the least walkable in O.C. with a score of 36. California cities ranging in population between 16,900 and 491,400 were rated on a scale of zero -100, with locations receiving a score of 90-100 considered a "Walkers' Paradise." Matt Lerner, co-founder of Walk Source, said it's typically the older cities such as Santa Ana — which had a score of 63 - that are the most walkable because their downtown areas developed before the automobile became the main mode of transportation. The cities that ranked the highest in California included: West Hollywood, 89.4; Albany, 86.7; and San Francisco, 85.9. The lowest ranking in the state: Mead Valley in Riverside County, 8.8; Prunedale in Monterey County, 9.3; and Adelanto, 11.3. NA kt z z £ v iVT' ice' n �;• i �. ALA `s k The Preface Group LLC Copyright.© 2011 All rights reserved. W U u?UJZ HN vai aW Qg °p Yz ZZ ti rQwULL U J H LU W N LU LU LU j h J ; z W W cn U z l u n N O P W O Q U �U -t Lu r �� �om01 LU m� a^ 2ga�e�i� t— �n3zm if 41 1 Ig( t C� I�Ik 3 � , � k I t 1,5 { L k r�1Y���i':. ..tl� I c t� ,;�f in a9 �� } �' `'� �� .:I "•t : ITK z t �r rilIIp J 1 .-} .?c V 2P.So� 9q P p '�� Ii t_af,�ia ]S III I s �;, f �% � ..�uP l�u � 1 t al` } IY I f� 11 lr. • `mss `ell I� : "4 e i�v If Al I I iIr i, s I I El JI" �t ti1l i y ' ¢"� _iso,;, � (c.• �� t� �., � � � � � f �( - .,y �Mmmnmfm 5 t1P r � lsr�'s� ��` "�`^""� "asl��"'� ar �� a5�-*a S 1 Y+t;`fi 4 t .,�� n a t r} u N a 't i C ! :- k"�5�,"-t-t't" r✓'� vd- t)7�{� rro�� �`�1hh7�:1�}� t�` �},�'`!.*�CF,'4��!�� �� �a j tyd�5 r! o'r2v F5'Fr?:,�� a ! t 7 UR F I:I g' �26d+v L� oh bC�L 3vSt,.Cv�s c y. j� t Ill d `cis r es4� n�' s s7 .�= ? ?� �:.1I.. �Es! _ ,! tY�hl�i(� ;'x.?' a irx U-77MUM7 3-7 ,3 4 Nn - ii fl - " N .-fr la„n i„zs 3k..5:e],>m s l.ru,� tx9.t a ani Ijjfj r,11 z� fy I ill I d� S, °i`%kr'>•v`e�,r. 1L1�¢l�' . t S4 rtl ti 1 r {eq�'ul1a �e� 4y�'a r1yaty�ia �alsl.�Ydj1�.• Hr yl%gk I H n �j t l�l 4 r4q °51t ltd y { 1 M1 ( 1 � 4A 5 �•k,�k jllrl ��,.�..IL .,..,� I 1 �1 r r t$r txa �`�d + t 1 +ttttll ter a r+• Jw P I.� t t tl t Itl' tt etti i% �i ll'1� t. MI II 11 t11 S yet t��i t, $ r'B' YC ��t lti�illti - �r �r I yl' I V?'tiS� ��I'•it� `+�' but �iiI �eas Ilii ' f d I Itr I t � p i f� a ei 1,+ 1 I s t4 � 13'•x.' e , @ a III _ a'��ltl! r' 1m..rlrt�/ 1 1 f --rlr ^—sJn 1 v -t Ori i k {l�4Piee�l i!//l)Ir�ljs Ir I y t, It tj�>,ik4ti Mtt6_: _, : ,.�l' ani.