Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/1981REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AMISSIONERS1 Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. x Date: January 8, 1981 City of Newport Beach TIT 1XIA1.1 Present. (Commissioner McLaughlin excused at '8:30 p.m. and returned at 9:30 p.m.) E`X- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: MINUTES William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary Staff .advised that the applicants for Item No. 7- Resubdivision No. 674, Item No. 9 - Modification No. 2633 and Item No. 13 - Use Permit No. 1973, have requested that these items be continued to January 22, 1981. Staff also stated that they are recommending that Item No. 14 - Amendment No. 557 be continued to January 22, 1981. Motion ix� Motion was made to continue the above stated All Ayes X X X X X X items to the meeting of January 22, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Initiate proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Maurice McDonald of 3226 Broad Street, appeared before the Commission. Mr. • McDonald asked if he would have the opportunity -I- INDEX Item #1 GENERAL PLAIT- - VM—ENDMENT UNWARRANTEE January 8, 1981 MINUTES City P of Newport Beach 11WLmLL INDEX to review the site plan before this is acted upon Planning Director Hewicker stated that in the event the.General Plan would be amended, the next step would be for a zone change application on this property. He stated that at the last Com- mission meeting, there was discussion on placing an architectural easement on the property so that the exterior architectural treatment of the building would remain as existing. He also state that this item was continued to allow the applica the.opportunity to meet with the homeowner's of the area and discuss this request. Mr. McDonald stated that he was concerned with the problem of the streets in the area. ...Mr.--Webb Assistant City Engineer, responded to Mr. McDon- ald's concerns on the street improvements. ,Mr. Webb stated that street improvements are handled in two ways - 1) as sites are redeveloped with new structures, curb, gutter and sidewalks are required; and 2) if the residents within the area • decide to have the street improvements installed in their area,:an assessment district will handle same, but this is entirely up to the residents of the area. Ms. Diana Springer of 3300 Clay Street, appeared in opposition to this item Ms. Springer stated that this a residentially zoned, family orientate area. She stated that the proposal will add' traffic to the area. Ms. Springer referred to her letter dated January 6, 1981.and stated that she had a petition which had been signed by 48 people in the neighborhood who are opposed to this request. She then submitted the petition - to the Commission. Ms. Barbara Humphries, the agent for the appli- cant, Robert Thomas Associates, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Humphries stated that the parking problem will be cut considerably by this request. She stated that this request will only improve.the area and that there.will be no change to the exterior of the building. Commissioner Thomas asked Ms.`Humphrie.s if Mr. Thomas had considered the suggestion of the archi -2- January 8, 1981 X � S City of Newport Beach MINUTES tectural. easement. Ms. Humphries stated that Mr.. Thomas was not in favor of the architectural easement, simply because he could never remodel the exterior of the structure. She added that the financial situation of the Church will be in jeopardy if they can not sell the building. Mrs. Shari Burr of 3308 opposition to this case. the residents of the are Church parking problem o that she does not want t neighborhood changed, th R -2. Clay Street, appeared in _-Mrs. Burr stated that a have adjusted to the n Sundays. She stated he character of her at it should remain zoned Ms. Sharon Wilson appeared in opposition to this request. .'Ms. Wilson stated that she lives across the street from the Church. She stated that she purchased her home in Newport Heights for a resi- dential, family type of atmosphere. She stated • that she would be opposed, to this commercial zoning in the residential area. 40 Ms. Pat, Strang, President of the Newport Heights Association, appeared before.the`Commission. Ms. Strang stated that Newport Heights is a'residenti neighborhood and that this request would constitu spot zoning. She stated that there has been strp suppart within the neighborhood to retain the res dential. zoning %of the community. She also added that no attempt was made by the applicant to con- tact her or the Association to explore the possi- biliti.es of this request. Mr. McDonald stated that he did not sign the petition in objection to.this, case, because he" felt that the petition was not clear. He stated that if the building stays intact, it will act as a good buffer between the residential areas to the south of the Church and the .commercial areas near the site. Commissioner Balalis stated that -he would be ab- staining from voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. -3- INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 January 8, 1981 MINUTES i Of >< INDEX Motion IIIII IIIMotion was made to forward this request for Ayes X X X X X General Plan Amendment No. 81 -1 (a) to the City Abstain X Council with the recommendation that considera- tion of.the amendment is unwarranted, which . MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Beek stated that he was pleased to see the neighbors -of the area participating in civic affairs concerning their community. OWNER: Bob Taube, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Carina Di Matteo, the applicant, appeare before the Commission. Ms. Di Matteo stated that she was in- concurrence with the staff report re- commendation that the use permit not be revoked. Motion X Motion was made that the continuance of Use Permit All Ayes X X X X X X No. 1866 be permitted with the findings and con - ditions as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is • compatible with surrounding land uses. -4- Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit Item #2 No. 1866 that permitted a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and win.e in an existing building in the C -1 District. This public hear- ing is to determine whether or not said use per- USE PERMIT mit should be revoked for failure to comply with certain required conditions of approval. ( evocation) LOCATION: Lot 13, Tract No. 121.0, located at 500 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast High- NOT REVOKED way, across from Bayshores. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Carina Di Matteo, Huntington Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: Bob Taube, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Carina Di Matteo, the applicant, appeare before the Commission. Ms. Di Matteo stated that she was in- concurrence with the staff report re- commendation that the use permit not be revoked. Motion X Motion was made that the continuance of Use Permit All Ayes X X X X X X No. 1866 be permitted with the findings and con - ditions as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is • compatible with surrounding land uses. -4- COMMISSIONERS zrIW S. � w 0 IR 0 I� f.J January 8; 1981 71 2. The project will not have any significant .environmental impact. MINUTES 3. The Police Department has indicated that they _do not contemplate any problems. 4. Adequate off- street parking spaces are being provided in conjunction with -the subject restaurant use on the site and on an approved off -site location. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1866 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detr mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residi and- working in the neighborhood or be detri- mental or injurious to-property-or improvemen in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That.development shall be in substantial con- formance with the previously approved plot plan and floor plan-, except as noted below. 2. That all exterior lighting shall be screened and maintained s-o as to conceal the Light source and confine direct rays to the pre- mises. All new signs shall conform to Chapter 20.53 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The existing roof sign shall not be enlarged or modified in design, except for sign copy which must be changed to delete the words, "Live Entertainment ". That approval of Use Permit No 1866 shall term'inate.on May 31, 1983; when the current lease expires. Any extension shall be sub- ject to the review and approval of the Modifications Committee. 4. That no live entertainment shall be permitted on site unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. -5- INDEX AMISSIONERS January 8, 1981 �i _ _ Ia City of Newport Beach MINUTES 5. That landscaping shall be provided and main - ta.ined in front of the building along Nest Coast Highway. Said landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Department. 6. That a revised off -site parking agreement providing for 6 spaces for the adjacent Antique Nautical Business and 7 spaces for the subject reataurant facility be recorded wit:h the County Recorder's Office and shall be in effect so long as the restaurant .facility is in operation. 7. That, one parking space for each 50 sq. ft. of "net public area" shall be provided for the restaurant use. However, 2 of the required 10 parking spaces for the 780 sq.. ft. of "net public area" within the restaurant facility shall be waived. 8. T.hat the applicant shall submit.verification • of .compliance with all of the above condition of approval in writing to the Planning Director within 60 days of this action. Request to convert an existing duplex into a two unit residential condominium. AND INDEX tem #3 AND Request to create one parcel of land for-con- dominium purposes where one lot exists so as to Item #4 allow the conversion of an existing duplex into a two unit condominium project. RESUB- LOCATION: Lot 7, Block 2 of Section 4, DIVISION Balboa Island Tract, located at NO. 672 107 and 109 Grand Canal on the westerly side of Grand.Canal between Continued Park Avenue and South Bayfr.ont, to tinue r on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Arnold and Charlene Mills, Balboa • Island -6- a January 8, 1981 m .. MINUTES INDEX OWNER ENGINEER: Same as applicant Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. James Parker, attorney re- presenting-the applicants, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Parker explained the background on these items and referred to'his letter dated November 7, 1980, as found in-the-staff report. Mr. Parker stated that they would be willing to comply that a special inspection of the building be conducted by the' Planning and - Building Depart - ments. He stated that two rental units will have a very minimal effect on the loss of housing unit in Orange County and Newport Beach. He stated that there is a one hundred percent indication from all of the tenants of the building that . they have no objections, in fact,,they are in support of the conversion. He added that the tenants are month -to -month tenants and therefore, none of'the existing tenants have expressed the desire to purchase a converted unit. He stated that the requirement of obtaining thirty percent of the existing tenant's written interest to pur= chase a converted unit would be impossible. Mr. Parker requested that this application be treated as a request for a Variance, in that the subject property contains only 3,400 square feet, where 5,000 square feet is needed to.comply with the condominium conversion section of the Zoning Code. Mr. Parker stated that the original approval was obtained app.roximate.ly one year before the new ordinance was passed. He stated that at that time, the application =was well within the require ments that had to be met, as well as those of the Coastal Commission. He stated that the loss of the permit was done inadvertently, but never- theless, has resulted in a forfeiture of the • 11111111 -7- COMMISSIONERS1 January 8, 1981 MINUTES �' eJJ Beach City permit. He stated that they are asking for relief from the hardship that the applicant has inadvertently placed on himself. Commissioner Allen asked Mr.. Parker if this ap- plication will have to be reprocessed by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Parker stated that as far as he knew, the approval had not expired. He added that the error was found when they tried to obtain building permits at the City. Chairman Haidinger stated that the.application before the Commission is not a request for a variance. Mr. Burnham stated that consideration of a variance would require readvertising of the public hearing to include the notice for a vari- ance request. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Coastal Com- mission permit may expire, as the coastal devel- opment permit was issued on January 22, 1979. He • stated that an extension of time may have to be applied for at the Coastal Commission, if this is the case. 0 Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Burnham to explain what constitutes a hardship. He stated that in this case, it is quite evident that the appli- cation was .filed at the City which had different regulations at the time. He asked if this is a sufficient hardship: under .the law to meet the definition and requirements of a variance appli- cation. Mr. Burnham stated that this may not.be a justified hardship because primarily, the hard- ship must relate to the circumstances that sur- round the building, the land; or the use. He stated that this case involves a change of ordi- nanaces; which is not an unusual situation in municipal law and zoning law. He stated that this is not a factor which would ordinarly be considered in determining whether there was a significant hardship to justify the granting of a variance. Commissioner Thomas stated that this a.a.real case of hardship which calls for discretionary INDEX CCGMMISSIONERS1 January 8,. 1981 MINUTES x 540 X0.2 z Beach INDEX judgement on the Commission's part. He stated that the definition of hardship has gone too far at times. Commissioner Beek stated that he is bound to the opinion expressed by the City Attorney.. He state that. this case does not constitute a legal hard- ship because it was the applicant's fault for not recording the map earlier. .Commissioner Balalis concurred with the statement of Commissioner Thomas. He stated that the hard- ship was created when the City changed its rules while the applicant was in the process.of ob- taining approval from another agency. He stated that this appears to be a doubl e-jeopardy situation in which the Commissi.on has a moral obligation.. Motion X Motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. 1969 subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A" of the staff report. 5 itute Substitute motion was made to continue Use Permit Motinon X No. 1969 to the meeting of February 5, 1981; so that the applicant may file a request for a variance. Commissioner McLaughlin accepted the substitute motion of Commissioner Balalis. Commissioner Allen asked Commissioner McLaughlin to explain her original motion for denial. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that.she moved for a denial on this item because of the vacancy rate., the hard - ship question and the under -sized lot which is invoTVed. Ayes X Y X Y Substitute motion by Commissioner Balalis was Noes X X now .voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Moti.on was made to continue Resubdivision No Ayes X X 672 to the meeting of February 5, 1981, so that Noes X X the Commission would be. able to discuss the re- lated items concurrently, which MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1981 MINUTES m City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX Request to create one parcel of land where eight Item #5 lots and an abandoned alley now exist so as to permit the remodeling of an existing commercial building located in the C -1 =H District. RESUB- DIVISION LOCATION: Lots 1, 2 and.3, Block H, Tract NO. 673 No. 323 and Lots 2, 4,.6, 8 and 10, Block 436 Corona del Mar Tract, and all of a vacated alley, APPROVED located at 3015 East Coast Highway, CONDI- on the westerly side of East Coast TIONALLY. Highway between Iris Avenue and Jasmine Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Newport Balboa Savings and Loan, Newport Beach OWNERS: E. Morris Smith and Romona Smith, Newport Beach • ENGINEER: Robert Bein,.William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, referred to the revised findings and conditions of approva that:have been discussed.with the applicant and his attorney. He stated that Condition of Ap- proval No. 5 should be revised as follows: 5) That the property owner will execute a written agreement prepared by,the City Attorney, whereby the property owner releases the City, and.agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless, from any liability for any los.s, claim, damage or injury which occurs on site and is related to the storm drain on site, when the date of the loss, claim, damage or.injury is subsequent to the cessation of use:.-of the drain by the City of Newport Beach. The public.hearing opened in connection with this item and M.r. Paul Ruffing, the architect repre- senting,.the applicant, appeared before the Com- mission. Mr. Ruffing stated that they are in • full concurrence with the revised conditions -10- 'p4,1 7 � 41 7C N January 8, 1981 lem MINUTES INDEX as amended this evening. Mr. Ruffing complimente the.staff for their full cooperation on this item Mr. Ben Jackson, representing the owners of the property, appeared before the Commiss.ion. Mr. Jackson stated that they are also in full con - currence with the conditions as-stated. He added that Condition Nos. 4 and'5 regarding the storm drain, will be fulfilled in the future. Motion X Motion was made for approval-of Resubdivision No. 673 with the revised findings and conditions as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets-the requirements of Title. 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable genera or specific plans and the.P1anning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision.. • 2. That the proposed resubdivision. presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- qui.red`by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a 10- foot.- radius corner cutoff be dediccated to the public at the corner of First Avenue and Iris and at the corner of East Coast Highway and Iris Avenue. 4. That at such time as the existing storm drain.across and under the site is no longer used by the City of Newport Beach, the pro- perty owner will: (a) Connect to the street dra.inage.system at his own expense, all on -site drains affected by the cessation of use of the ' storm drain. -11- January 8, 1981 m Beach MINUTES RWCALLI III Jill IINDEX (b) Accept a quitclaim deed from the City of Newport conveying any right, title, or interest it may have in and to the existing storm drain. 5. That the property owner will execute.a written agreement prepared by the City Attorney, whereby the property owner re- leases the City, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless, from any liability for any loss, claim, damage or injury which occurs on site and.is related to the storm drain•on site, when the date of the loss, claim, damage or injury is sub- sequent to the cessation of use of the drain by the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she would vote against the motion in that this request would not be the best use of the building, • because there-are already numerous banks in Corona del, Mar. She added that she would not like to see the neighborhood shops eliminated. Commissioner Beek stated that he concurred with Commissioner McLaughlin's thoughts, but stated that the Commission did not have the power, as yet, to make that discrimination. He. stated that he would hope that the City would eventuall have a Specific Area Plan for Corona del Mar which would give the Commission that power. Commissioner Thomas concurred.and encouraged the Chairman to appoint a sub- committee to study the preservation of retail uses within the City. Ayes X X X X Motion by Commissioner Balalis for approval of Noes Resubdivision No. 673, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. C.UMM155IUNtKS January 8, 1981 MINUTES . 9k 5. 1 C I City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX Request to create two parcels of land for Item #6 single - family residential development where a portion of.one lot now .exi.sts, and the RESUB- acceptance of an Environmental Document. DIVISION LOCATION: A portion of Lot 28, Newport Heights NO. 671. Tract, located at 647 Irvine Avenue on the westerly side of Irvine DENIED Avenue between Margaret..Drive and Holly Lane, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Paul Herrick, Costa Mesa OWNER: Robert F. McGiffin, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Paul Herrick-, representing the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that they are in complete concurrence with the • staff report recommendation for approval. Commissioner Beek asked staff or Mr. Herrick to explain why construction financing.can not be obtained to build a larger house on the lot. Planning-Director Hewicker:stated that back in 1977 the applicants had working.dr.awings and had obtained a,building permit for construction of a large single family dwelling. The applicants could not obtain a loan at that time b.ecause.the lenders felt that the proposal would constitute over =building for the area in question. Commissioner Beek suggested that perhaps a smalle house should be built bn:the lot. Mr. Herrick stated that the lot is only 250 square feet short of being a legal two lot subdivision. He stated that the lot -is surrounded by older homes, some of which are not wel.l maintained and that the lot.is across the street from Newport Harbor High School. He stated that it would not be economi- cally.:feasibl.e to build only one small house on the lot. 1 I I I -13- COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1981 MINUTES Fill, N N City of Newport Beach i RIM Commissioner Beek stated that if construction financing can be obtained for'two houses, then surely construction financing,can"'be obtained for only one house. Mr. Herrick stated that the only way in which this particular lot would become economically feasible is to divide the lot into two parcels. He again stated that the lot is only 250 square feet short of being a legal two parcel lot. Mr. Arthur Resmicoff, adjoining property owner at 2212 Margaret Drive, appeared before the Commis - sion in opposition to this item.. Mr. Resmicoff stated that this request would be placing spot zoning in an area which • primarily consists of single family homes. He stated'that he did not feel; that this proposal would be upgrading the area. Ms. Pat Strang, President of the Newport Heights Homeowners Association, appeared before the Com- mission. Ms. Strang stated that this proposal is cons- idered spot zoning.and approval of this item would set a precedent for parcel splitting in the area. She also stated that 'there is also concern with the additional traffic that may be created by this request. Mr. Herrick stated that Ms. Strang was not able to meet with him, but that she had referred him to the Vice - President of the Association, Mr. Langstrom. Mr. Herrick stated that he discussed this proposal" with Mr. Langstrom and that Mr. Langstrom had stated that the Association would be in agreement if two single family dwellings, . each containing 2,000 sq. ft. or less (including garages), were to be`built on the property. Mr'. Herrick stated that this request,. would en- hance the neighborhood and the.general area. He also stated that the two houses would have parkin to meet the Code, and therefore.would not be a detriment to the area. Motion X Motion was made for denial of Resubdivision No. Ayes X XX X X 671 with the following findings for denial, which Noes X MOTION CARRIED: • -14- x m 0 is January 8, 1981 MINUTES of Newport Beach FINDINGS: .1. That the proposed resubdivision is not con- sistent with the requirements of the Sub - division Code and Zoning.Ordinances of the City. 2. That the subject property is not suitable for .the proposed resubdivision in that minimum lot size standards are not met. 3. That there are not sufficient grounds for the Planni.ng Commission to approve the request for exceptions from City requirements. 4. That the exception is not necessary fo.r pre - servation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 5. That the granting of the exception will be detrimental to the public welfare and in- jurious to other property. in the area. Request to create one parcel of land for sale purposes, one parcel designated as "not a build- ing site ", and one residual parcel to be held for future development; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 2 of Tract No. 1125, located at 200 Dover Drive on the easterly side of Dover Drive between Westcliff'Drive and Cliff Drive on the Castaways property. ZONE: P -C. APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Newport Beach -15- INDEX Item #7 RESUB DIVISION NO. 674 Continued to�Janua_ry 22, 1981 �x on EX( January 8, 1981 M Beach MINUTES Staff advised that the applicant has requested' that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on January 22, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue Resubdivision No. 674 All Ayes X X YX X X Y to January 22, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Commissioner McLaughlin excused herself from the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Request to consider Amendment No. 1 to the Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining devel- opment on Office Site C of the Koll Center • Planned Community, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INDEX Item #8 TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN LOCATION: Office Site C of the Planned Community of Koll Center Newport, Continued located easterly of MacArthur to January Boulevard between Campus Drive 22, 1981 and Birch Street. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Planning Director Hewicker stated that General Plan Amendment 79 -1 led to a law suit against the City by the Koll .Company. He stated that settlement of the lawsuit in May of 1980 re- quired the City to rescind General Plan'Amendment 79 -1 as it effected Koll.Center Newport and re- instate land use allocations in effect prior to its passage. He stated that The Irvine Company now proposes to amend the approved Phasing Plan to include an.additional 125,370 square feet of • office space in Office Site C. -16- COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1981 MINUTES . City of Newport Beach tLCALL INDEX Chairman Haidinger asked staff to explain the Commiss'ion's area of discretion on this item. Planning Director Hewicker stated. that the development has to be phased with traffic im- provements in the area and, the Commission has to make certain findings with respect to the constru tion and phasing of the development. He stated that the amount of square footage to.be built has already been set by the General Plan. Chairman Haidinger concluded that the issue before the Commission this evening is to determine whether the traffic will be handled property, if the mitigation measures are reasonable, and if the project can be phased properly. Commissioner Balalis stated that when this case was last heard, he had suggested that a condition be imposed on the applicant, that the improvement to MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive be in place„ prior to any construction on the site. Planning Director H,ewicker stated that the appli- cant is permitted to build a certain amount of square footage without a traffic phasing plan. Mr. Don Webb, Assisant City Engineer, stated that the applicant, as part of their particular requir ments.for the tract, have completed the paving, curb.; gutter and sidewalk improvements on both MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive;_that would be required for 'their ultimate widening. Chairman Haidinger stated that he does not approv of minor markings on the road being considered as traffic mitigation measures. He stated that this procedure and method of analysis should have been changed, as it is quite difficult to evaluate the traffic impact. Planning Di- rector Hew.icker stated that the Plan - ning Commission and the City Council have estab- lished the method whereby traffic impacts on developments that have been exempted from the Traffic Ordinance, shall be handled. He stated that certain criteria such.as ICU's, peak periods and.a test of reasonableness were set forth by the City. He stated that the fact remains, that • the applicants will do the minimum amount of traffic improvements to accommodate this. -17- COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1981 MINUTES City of New Wt Beach INDEX Chairman Haidinger referred to Page 8 of the staff report, the ICU Summary, and asked if the only change would be the striping of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, and East Coast Highwa and MacArthur Boulevard. He also asked if these mitigation measures have been included as traffic improvements in other projects before the Commis- sion. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinat stated that every traffic mitigation measure here is incorporated in at least one other project:. He added however, that all of the traffic here, is inclusive of all other approved projects. Commissioner Balalis stated that this point has been discussed for over a year now by the Commis- sion. He stated that striping and additional striping are not considered substantial improve- ments to the road system. He stated that sub - stantial improvements would be additional paving, or adding signalization • Commissioner Cokas stated that he concurs with the comments of Chairman Haidinger and Commission Balalis. But, he stated that the facts are that I 1111 the rules have been set down by the City and the developers are only abiding by those rules. Chairman Haidinger stated ,that the Commission had proposed; the test of reasonableness three years ago., because if was felt that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was excessively rigid, and it should have been a test which allows for greater dis- cretion by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that the test of reasonable- ness can not be determined because the informatio given-is inadequate. Commissioner Allen stated that she is concerned with the yellow paint solutions list that could be performed by the City, which.wo.uld eliminate these as traffic mitigation measures. Chairman Haidinger stated that the list was prepared, but that the paint solutions continue to come up in these cases. Mr. Webb stated that the paint solutions are proposed for intersections which are not an an unacceptable level.at the present time, along with other solutions. -18- WISSIONERS January 8, 1981 CL fir I ff City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that even with all of the mitigation measures., such as striping, additional lanes and actual physical changes, the intersections will stilt beat unacceptable levels. He stated that this question.is, will the Commission continue to approve developments that put'si.gnificant amounts of traffic through intersections which already provide unsatisfactor service. He stated that the reasonable solution to the problem is to stop increasing the burden on the streets. Th.e public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Ron Hendrickson, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hendrickson stated that six projects have already been approved under the test of reasonabl ness and requested that this proposal receive equitable treatment. He referred to the staff report and stated that the five traffic improve- ments. are conditions of other.projects. He • stated that the Transportation.Fund was establish as a means for the developer to aid in improving traffic conditions: He stated that the staff has recommended an amount of approximately $4.8,075.00 which will go towards making.traffic improvements Mr. Hendrickson also stated that the traffic engineer was present at the meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have. Motion X Motion was made to continue this item -to January 22, 1981, in order to obtain. a more detailed analysis of the traffic impacts from the traffic consultant. Chairman Haidfnger.referred to Page 8 of the staff report and stated that he would like an additional column to reflect the impact of the. additional•.construction before the mitigation measures take place. Mr. Talarico stated that all of the 'improvements that are indicated, are also required of other projects. He referred to the project ratio as found in the environmental impact report for the project. • 11111111 -19- 51, �fi January 8, 1981 Beach Chairman Haidinger stated that nevertheless, he wants to see the impact on traffic without the mitigation measures and with the mitigation measures. -Mr. Hendrickson stated that.the circulation system improvements and mitigation measures in question are conditions of approval of other committed.projects. He stated that they are committed to ensuring that the work at.these intersections.are completed prior to occupancy of the building. MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated that he would also like to know what affect the additional square footage will have. Mr. Talarico referred to Appendix B of the adden- dum to the EIR, the intersection capacity utilizat.ion analysis sheet. He stated that this sheet indicates what would happen for each inter- section, whether this project is approved, or not • Commissioner Allen stated that she i.s concerned with the intersection of East Coast Highway and M c- Arthur Boulevard. She stated that this inter- section should be. prevented from becoming i.mpacte due to this project. She referred to the sugges- tion by the Public Works Department, for the improvements of Avocado Avenue from-East Coast Highway to San Miguel Drive. Ayes X YX X X Y Motion for the continuance of the Traffic'Phasing Absent * plan to January 22, 1981, was now voted on which MOTION CARRIED. Request to permit alterations and additions.to Item #9 an existing single family residence that is nonconforming in that the existing structure MODIFICA- encroaches to within 1' =6" of the south side TION NO. property -line and to within 2' -6" of the north 2633 side property line where the Code requires 3' side yard setbacks. The proposed garage en- Continued . to January -20- 22, 1981 COMMISSIONERS Ow ills January 8, 1981 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX • croaches 4' -8" into the .required 5' rear setback and the second floor addition encroaches 2' -2" into the required 2' -6" rear setback for second floor development on the 70 foot deep lot. LOCATION: Lot 48, Block C of Newport Bay Tract, located at 322 Alvarado Place on the easterly si.de of Alvarado Place, be- tween East Bay Avenue and Edgewater Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Archi- Tekton, Inc. Newport Beach OWNERS:- Mr. and Mrs.-Richard Smith Newport Beach Staff advised that the applicant -has requested that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on January 22, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue Modification No. All Ayes X X X X X 26.33, to January 22, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to permit the construction of a new Item #10 cashier's booth and other alterations-in con - junction with,.the conversion of an existing USE PERMIT full service gas station to a self service gas station located in the 'C -1 District. NO'. 1970 LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block T of Tract No. Continued 323, Tocated at 3400 East Coast to January Highway, on the northeasterly 22, 1981 corner.of East Coast Highway and Marigold Avenue in Corona del Mar. • 11111111 -21- WISSIONERS January 8, 1981 5 w y City of Newport Beach ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: J & M Oil Company.Inc., Unit #2 Los Angeles OWNER: Gary J. Gerber, Los Angeles MINUTES Commissioner Beek asked staff if there was a problem with handicap requirements for the rest - rooms. Planning Director Hewicker stated that in the event the handicap .regulations require that the restrooms be enlarged, this would have to be done. He added that this would be deter- mined in the plan check review phase. The.public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Wil.liam.MacLeod, representing the owner, appeared before the Commissio.n. Mr. Mac - Leod referred °to the.staff report, Condition of Approval No. 10, and asked if the dedication of the corner cut -off would affect their sign, which • would then. be_located.in the.right -of -way. Mr. Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that if the area were to be dedicated to the public, the sign would have to be located out of the right - of -way. Mr. MacLeod referred to Condition..of Approval No. 12, that a parcel map be filed.. H.e asked if this condition implies that the parcel map must be completed_ before construction is started, or that the parcel map be completed within a reasonable amount of time. Mr Burnham; Assistant City Attorney, stated that the condition could be re- vised to read, "That a.parcel map be filed within a reason -able amount -of time." Mr. MacLeod referred to Condition of Approval No. 8 regarding the sign limitations: He stated that as of Ja.nuary 1, 1981., the State has _a new requir ment that all gasoline prices be posted at all service stations. °He.stated that the sign limi- tation of 8 square feet, is not large enough to accommodate the four prices that -will be used. He stated that in order to comply with the State regulati -ons, they purchased a new sign which is -22- INDEX January 8, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach 19XV 21 square feet. He stated that the new sig.n posts the prices properly and he stated that.they should be entitled to keep the 21 square foot sign intact. He added that the public can not read small signs. He stated that they are re- questing approval of this use permit in order to install new equipment that can keep up with the increasing prices of fuel. Mr. MacLeod referred.to. Page 5 of the staff re port, Item No. 2 and stated that he would be willing to.give up.20.square feet of the Texaco sign in exchange for keeping their 21 square foot pricing sign. Commissioner Beek refe.rred staff to Condition.of Approval No. 8 and stated that four words, "that one sign of" needs to be included in the second. line: And, Finding No. 5, third to the last word to be changed from "to" to "of"'. • Commissioner Beek asked Don Webb if the 10 foot radius corner cut -off would include the sign post Mr. Webb stated that in looking at the plan, it would not appear that the cut -off would include the post. He stated that as long as the post is located.outside of the.right -of -way, it would be acceptable.- There can be an encroachment permit issued for signs that are up a certain distance from the ground. Chairman Haidinger asked.Mr. MacLeod if he would consider .a continuance on this item to January 22 1981, so that he and the staff could discuss these problems: Mr. MacLeod concurred. Motion X Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1970 Ayes X X X Y to the meeting of January 22, 1981, which MOTION Absent * CARRIED. Commissioner McLaughlin returned to the meeting at 9:30 p.m. • IIIIIIII COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1981 MINUTES -4 g City of Newport . Beach LCALL 111111 1 INDEX Request to permit the construction of a two unit Item #11 residential condominium and related garage spaces on property located in the R -2 District. Said USE PERMIT application also requests a modification to the NO. 1971 Zoning Code so as to allow a fireplace and a chimney to encroach into the required 10. foot rear ya-rdL setback. AND AND Request to create one parcel of land for resi- Item #12 dential condominium purposes where one lot presently exists. RESUB- DIVISION LOCATION: Lot 4 Block 8 of Tract No.. 27, NO. 675 located at 3233 Broad Street on the westerly side of Broad Street, between Westminster Avenue and APPROVED Bolsa Avenue in Newport Heights. CONDI- ZONE: R -2 TIONALLY • APPLICANT: Crint Construction, Costa Mesa OWNER: Edward Andrade, Irvine ENGINEER / ARCHITECT: - J. Ward Dawson, Inc., Tustin The public hearing opened in connection with thes items and Mr. Malcolm Davy', representing the appl cant,-appeared before th.e:C:ommission. Mr. Davy stated that they were in agreement with the findings.and conditions of the staff report. Mr. Don Cox, owner of the property. at 3239 Broad Street, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Cox stated that he is i'n favor of the ,proposed con- dominium project. Commissioner Beek asked-staff-if this resubdivisi will be creating lots which are less than the required 5,000 square feet. Planning Director Hewicker stated that no new parcels are being created by this request. He stated that this is a resubdivision of an. existing parcel for condo- minium purposes. -24- January 8, 1981 ��n MINUTES INDEX Motion Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. Ayes K H X, V 1971 with the following findings and conditions, Abstain X which MOTION CARRIED: FI- NDINGS- 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed`as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project complies with all a.pplica.ble standards, plans.,.and'.zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the.proposed. project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4.. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the.General Plan. • 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the .proposed residential condo - minium development. That the propos:ed.fi.replace and chimney en- croachment into the required ten (10) foot rear yard 'setba.ck is minor in nature and. does.not significantly reduce the available rear yard open space of the development. Therefore, said encroachment will not under the circumstances_ of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in.the neighborhood of such proposed use or-be detrimental or.in- jurious,.to property .and, improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the .City and further that the proposed modifi- cation is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 7. The approval of Use.Permit.No. 1971 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, -25- COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1981 MINUTES �i MME M Beach INDEX morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neigh- borhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in Condition No. 4. 2. That two garage.spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Said garage spaces shall have side walls, roofs, and operating garage doors for access of automobiles. 3. That all Conditions of Resubdivision No. 675. shai -1 be fulfilled. • 4. That the,proposed development shall be de- signed and construt ted.within: the 24 foot height limit a.s required by Section 20.02.030 A. of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.' Motion IIXI[I Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision Ayes X X X X X No. 675 with the fol'low.i.ng findings and condi- Abstain X tions, which MOTION `CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal.Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable ..,general-or specific plans, and the Planning Commission-is. satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 12. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from'a :planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. • 11111111 -26- COMMISSK)NERSI January 8, 1981 MINUTES • I I I I I I I' n U Of Beach 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by. ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all improvements'(curb, gutter, sidewalk and paveout) be completed along the Broad Street frontages; and that the street improve ments be constructed under an encroachment. permit issued by the Public Works Department. 4. That each unit have individual sewer laterals and sewer services unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to record the parcel map prior to completion of the; public improvements. 6. That plan check and inspection fees be paid. Request to construct a new single story, commer- cial building in conjunction with the expansion and remodel of the exis.ting Market Basket Shopping Center, and related off - street parking area in the.Unclassified District. The request also includes the acceptance of an offsite parking .agreement for a portion of the required parking spaces. LOCATION: Portion of Parcels.No. 1 and No. 3 and all of Parcel No. 2 of Record Survey 35 -25, located at 3100 Balboa Boulevard on the north- easterly corner of Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street in Central Newport. ZONES: C -1 and Unclassified APPLICANT: Innovative Graphics, Inc., Orange OWNER: William J. Cagney/ c/o Don R. Adkinson, Newport Beach -27- INDEX Item #13 PERMIT Continued to January 22, 1981 COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1,981 MINUTES 3 City of Newport Beach ILCALL INDEX Staff advised that the applicant has requested that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on January 22, 1981. Motion X. Motion was made to continue. Use Permit No. 1973, All Ayes X X X XK X X to January 22, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal. Code: as it pertains to the powers and .duties of the Modification's Committee; nonconforming structures, a.nd uses; and residential parkin.g.standards,.and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Staff. recommended that this item, Amendment No. • 557, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on January 22, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue.Amendment No. 557 All Ayes X X XK X X X to J,anuary,22, 798'1,'which MOTION CARRIED. A =DDITIONAL BUSINESS Amendments:; Motion IIIX Motion was made to notify the Ex- Officio All Ayes X X X X X 1I11 Secretary of the Commission's intent to amend the Planning Comm-ission's Rules of Procedure on January 22, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. IIIIII11 -28- January 8, 1981 w �o D w City Of MINUTES Excused Absences Motion K Motion was made for excused absences for Chair - All Ayes X XK X X X man.Haidinger and Commissioner Cokas for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m. . George Cokas, Secretary Planning'Commission • City of Newport Beach 0 -29- INDEX