Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/1984COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE:- City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. • m m DATE: January 19, 1984 moo City of Newport Beach MINUTES M R O L L CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX XI *1 Commissioner Balalis was absent. * R EX- OFFICIO MEMBER PRESENT: Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney * « « STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary Staff requested that Item No. 6 - Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 597 and Use Permit No. 3080; and Item No. 10 - General Plan Amendment 83 -1(b), be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984. Motion X Motion was made to continue the above listed items to All Ayes X N X X X X * the Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. -1- • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of December 8, 1963 Motion Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission All Ayes X 2 X X X X * Minutes of December 8, 1983, as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of January 5, 1984 Motion x Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission All Ayes x N X X X X * Minutes of January 5, 1984, as written, which MOTION CARRIED., * « * Staff requested that Item No. 6 - Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 597 and Use Permit No. 3080; and Item No. 10 - General Plan Amendment 83 -1(b), be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984. Motion X Motion was made to continue the above listed items to All Ayes X N X X X X * the Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. -1- January 19, 1984 v m m City of Newport Beach use Permit No. 3072 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to reconsider the action of the Planning Commission in conjunction with the conditions of approval for the "Park Bar and Grill" Restaurant. The proposed development includes a full service bar, an addition of an open patio for dining and drinking purposes, and for the use of live entertainment within the restaurant facility. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an off -site parking agreement which will provide additional restaurant parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Block C, Tract No. 470 and an abandoned portion of Carnation Avenue, located at 2515 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Loomis Foods, Inc., Corona del Mar OWNER: Poole Properties, Inc., Corona del Mar Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she has read the previous staff report and minutes prepared for this item. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Hugh Coffin, attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Coffin stated that the operational characteristics of the restaurant have not changed from the prior restaurant uses. He further stated that the applicant obtained all of the required permits from the City of Newport Beach prior to commencing, the remodel of the restaurant. He requested that the application be approved with the findings and conditions as indicated in the staff report dated November 10, 1983, with the exception that the restaurant be open on Sunday at 10:30 a.m. for a brunch operation, and that Condition No. 10, relating to a security guard, be deleted. -2- MINUTES INDEX Item #1 USE PERMIT NO. 3072 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY MINUTES January 19, 1984 � o' W a City, of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Robert Longacre, resident of 701 Carnation Avenue, stated that the prior restaurant use, Maison Alexis, was never open until 2:00 a.m. and was not a problem for the surrounding residents. He expressed his concern with the litter, noise, parking and traffic problems generated by the current restaurant operation, which violates the health and safety of the surrounding residents. He stated that the current restaurant operation places more emphasis on the bar usage, rather than on the food operation. He further expressed his concern that if the applicant has reduced the floor area, why has the occupancy load increased from 60 to 150. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, stated that the size of the bar area is not distinguished from the floor area of a restaurant use. • Mr. Don Augustine, resident of 2431 Fourth Avenue, stated that the current restaurant operation disrupts his sleep during the evening and early morning hours. He requested that the hours of operation be restricted to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, stated that the an extensive amount of remodeling took place to the interior and exterior of the building, however the parking requirements for this use were not brought up to Code. He stated that the permit to operate was improperly issued by the City. He stated that the restaurant utilizes all of the street parking, which impacts the surrounding residential neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Laycock stated that the current use is a legal, non - conforming restaurant use. He stated that at the time the subject property was developed with a restaurant, there was no requirement for off - street parking for such uses. He stated that, there are similar restaurant uses in the area which also are not required to provide off - street parking. He further stated that under the Non - Conforming Structures and Uses section of the zoning Code, legal, non - conforming structures can be remodeled without obtaining a use • permit. -3- MINUTES January 19, 1984 a City of Newport Beach INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Laycock stated that building permits were issued for the remodel to the facility. He stated that the operational characteristics of the restaurant use had changed and therefore, the use permit was requested. Mr. Al Learned -, resident of 607 Begonia Avenue, expressed his concern with the existing congested parking conditions of the area. He stated that many of the patrons of the restaurant utilize the street parking, which further deteriorates the residential property values of the adjoining neighborhood. Mr. Bill Markas, resident of 609 Carnation Avenue, expressed his concern with the late night noise and the parking problems generated by the current restaurant use. Mr. Tony Ranger, resident of 423 Carnation Avenue, . stated that the streets in this area were busy streets before the Park Bar and Grill Restaurant was in operation. He stated that the remodeled restaurant is a benefit to the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Laycock stated that the Planning Commission can reconsider and discuss the entire application. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Laycock stated that according to the Fire Department files, the occupancy load of the previous use was for 99 occupants in the main restaurant area. He stated that the current use has a occupancy load of 99 occupants in the restaurant area and 30 occupants in the patio area, for a total of occupant load of 129. He further stated that the patio has been utilized by the two former restaurant uses in the past. Mr. Beryl Campbell, resident of 601 Carnation Avenue, stated that because of the winter weather, there have not been as many noise complaints from the surrounding residents. He stated that during the warmer weather when the residents have their windows open, the patrons of the restaurant are likely to cause more of a noise • disturbance. 10 MINUTES January 19, 1984 � s � m m City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Person stated that he has visited the establishment on two separate occasions; late in the evening, along with Commissioner Winburn and Commissioner Goff. He stated that it was his observation that the fast moving traffic on the side streets was created by traffic turning off from East Coast Highway, and not patrons of the restaurant use. Furthermore, he stated that he did not observe the patrons creating any disturbances as they left the restaurant. Commissioner Goff suggested restricting the hours of operation on Thursday to 12:00 midnight, rather than 2:00 a.m. He stated that Friday is a workday and restricting the hours of operation on Thursday would less likely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. Motion I IXI I I I I I Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3072, s X X X Y X subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" tain X of the original staff report dated November 10, 1983, sent * with the following revisions: Condition No. 10, relating to the security guard, be deleted; that the restaurant can be open on Sunday at 10:30 a.m. for a brunch operation; and, that the hours of operation be allowed until 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday morning, and until 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development as conditioned, is consistent with 'the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The off -site parking area is located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use. 4. Parking on such off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. • 5. That the waiver of parking in this case is based on the required good faith effort and continuing obligation on the part of the applicant to seek and obtain off - street parking. -5- � ♦ \I�tlJJIVI RIW - , January 19, 1984 r mm m City of Newport Beach MINUTES M ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 1 6. That the waiver of a resubdivision is justified in this particular case since the estate in the real property is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots or parcels which constitute the building site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvements placed on the site. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3072 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 8. The proposed use of tandem parking and a valet parking service 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 injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot, plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. A restaurant shall be permitted on the site and shall be allowed to remain open until 2:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday morning, and shall be allowed to remain open until 12:00 midnight on Sunday through Thursday. The restaurant shall not open earlier than 11:00 a.m., except on Sunday, the restaurant can open at 10:30 a.m. for a brunch operation. This use permit shall receive a new number (i.e. Use Permit No. 3072), and Use Permit No. 1417 and conditions thereto shall be deemed void and of no effect: 3. That the applicant shall provide to the best of • his ability and on an informal basis, a minimum of twenty -four (24) off- street parking spaces on property located at the northwesterly corner of 3 � MINUTES January 19, 1984 of Newport Beach East Coast Highway and Dahlia Avenue (Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 3, Block C, Tract No. 470) for evening use. Ln the event that the applicant is no longer able to use some or all of this off -site lot, the applicant shall notify the Planning Director within. 30 days and the matter will be referred to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission on review, may impose upon the applicant a continuing obligation to seek and obtain adequate off -site parking. • IIIIIIII 8. That the off - street parking requirement is waived on the basis on the required good faith effort and continuing obligation of the applicant to seek and obtain off - street parking. 9. That all trash containers shall be screened from view and from adjacent properties, and no trash shall be dumped into said trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m, daily. 10. Deleted by the Planning'Commission. 11. That the Planning Commission may add and/or modify conditions of approval to this.use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community. -7- INDEX 4. That the valet parking service be provided at all times during the evening hours of operation. 5. That the City Traffic Engineer shall approve the specific valet operation and route. 6. That the valet station shall be located within the on -site parking area and shall maintain a minimum distance of approximately 118 feet from Carnation • Avenue. 7. Live entertainment shall be limited to a single unamplified piano and a single microphone to amplify only the human voice, and shall be confined to the interior of the building. • IIIIIIII 8. That the off - street parking requirement is waived on the basis on the required good faith effort and continuing obligation of the applicant to seek and obtain off - street parking. 9. That all trash containers shall be screened from view and from adjacent properties, and no trash shall be dumped into said trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m, daily. 10. Deleted by the Planning'Commission. 11. That the Planning Commission may add and/or modify conditions of approval to this.use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community. -7- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 19, 1984 i $ a ° m City, of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX A. Tentative Map of Tract No. 12079 (Continued Public Hearing) Item #2 Request to subdivide an existing single lot, containing .48 acres of land area, into a single lot for residential condominium purposes, on property located in the R -3 -B District, and the acceptance of an environmental document. TMT 12079 AND UP 3075 CDP 4 B. Use Permit No. 3075 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 14 unit residential condominium development located in the R -3 -B District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow portions of the proposed building and deck areas to encroach 10 ALL feet, and a chimney to encroach 12 feet, into the APPROVED required 20 foot front yard setback area along Morning CONDI- • Canyon Road. A modification to the Zoning Code is also TIONALLY requested to permit an 8 sq.ft. identification sign where the Sign Code permits a 6 sq.ft. sign in the R -3 -B District. FM C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 4 Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 14 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low - and - Moderate - income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Lot 3, Tract No. 1237, located at 487 Morning Canyon Road, on the northeasterly corner of Morning Canyon Road and East Coast Highway, in Corona Highlands. • l I I I I , APPLICANT: Rumney Enterprises, Inc. Irvine am F � $ v m m 0 January 19, 1984 of Newport Beach MINUTES IIIIIIII R O L L CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX I • 0 OWNER: - Same as Applicant ENGINEER: . Paul Calvo Associates, Seal Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Warren James, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. James stated that since the last hearing he has met with 24 homeowners to further explain the proposed project. He stated that the homeowners concerns fell into two categories: 1) Many did not want any development on the site, which he stated was not feasible, and, 2) Many were concerned with the potential for view blockage. He stated that in response to the concern with view blockage, balloons were floated at the peak height of the proposed development. He stated that the height of the trees were approximately 15 to 20 feet higher than the top of the balloons. Mr. James then requested approval of the proposed project as submitted, with the revision that one affordable unit be provided, rather than two affordable units. Mr. Jerry Esterbrook, resident of 516 De Anza Drive, and President of the Corona Highlands Property Owners Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Esterbrook expressed his concern with the density of the proposed project. Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator stated that the property is zoned R -3 -B and explained how the buildable acreage was determined. Mr. Esterbrook stated that there are only two entrances into the neighborhood and expressed his concern that the proposed density of the project will increase the traffic congestion in the area and generate on- street parking problems. He stated that 14 units situated on less than one -half acre of land, is too dense for the area. He also expressed his concern with the encroachment into the required front yard setback and the height of the proposed project. He stated that the proposed project does not provide a buffer between itself and the R -1 zoned residential homes in the area. MINUTES January 19, 1984 r m ° m City of Newport Beach m;o ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX In response to concerns expressed by Mr. Esterbrook, Chairman King stated that the property has been zoned R -3 -B since 1948. He stated that the proposed project will be offering for sale. units, rather than rental units which currently exist on the property, which will reduce the transient nature of the site. The project also adheres to setbacks which will preserve the environmental sensitivity of the canyon. He further stated that the proposed project will include eleven guest parking spaces, which will alleviate the concern relating to on-street parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Laycock stated that under the R -3 -B zoning, the developer could construct 1 dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of land area, for a total of 14 dwelling units on the site. Mr. Esterbrook expressed his concern that the zoning on • the property dates back to 1948 and stated that because of this older zoning, the proposed project will create a detriment to the currently existing single family residential structures in the area. Mr. Joseph Daniel, attorney representing several residents of Cameo Highlands, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Daniel stated that they are concerned with the view blockage of the proposed project to many of the homes located on the canyon. He stated that the CC &R's dictate that the trees are to be no higher than 16 feet and he has heard that the proposed project will be at 30 feet. He requested that this item be continued so that the residents in Cameo Highlands may have the opportunity to view the balloons. Chairman King stated that the balloons have been in place for several days for interested members of the community to view. He further stated that at the last public hearing on this item, a resident of Cameo Highlands volunteered to organize the neighbors and meet with the applicant. Mr. Myron Hawley, resident of 508 De Anza Drive, stated that the current winds have disrupted the balloon test. He stated that the proposed project, including the • addition of 14 additional chimneys, will impact the views of the surrounding area. -10- MINUTES January 19, 1984 7NO, w City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Hawley further expressed his concern that fire and safety equipment access will be difficult in a community which only has two traffic entrances, when considering that the 30 foot wide street will be lined with 8 foot wide vehicles. He stated that the proposed project will add additional traffic to the area which can not improve the health, safety and morals of the existing community. He stated that further study is needed of the intent of the zoning provisions and that incremental exceptions to the Zoning Code must be stopped. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Laycock stated that the project does not exceed the allowable height limitation. He stated that the project is requesting a modification to encroach into the front yard setback so that the rear of the project will not encroach into the canyon area. • Ms. Donna Franklin, resident of 633 Rockford Road, stated that the proposed project will destroy the sunsets for the residents of the canyon. She expressed her concern that the proposed project will also generate noise which will travel across the canyon. She stated that she was not aware of the balloon test until today and requested that this item be continued. Ms. Jean Wagner, resident of Corona Highlands, stated that many of the residents of the area are not aware of the proposed project. She stated that she has never seen a notice posted on the property advising the residents of the area of the public hearing. She stated that the proposed project will generate at least 2 vehicles per unit, not 1.5 vehicles as stated in the staff report. She expressed her concern that the traffic in this area is already impacted and that the proposed project will add to the already dangerous conditions. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that -she is a resident of Corona Highlands and that she had received a flyer on Monday at her house, regarding the proposed project. Mr. Esterbrook stated that because the term, Negative Declaration was utilized, many of the residents felt as though the City was going to deny the project. -11- MINUTES January 19, 1984 3 x v m m o m a ° w. City of Newport Beach oo M R O L L CALL I III J i l l I INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Laycock explained the public notification procedure which is utilized. He stated that all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified by mail and the adjoining homeowners associations were also notified. He stated that the subject property was posted with the public notice 10 days prior to the public hearing of January 5, 1983. He stated that the term, Negative Declaration, is a required statement by State law. Mr. Robert Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the City has since clarified the use of Negative Declaration in all of the public notices. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that Mr. Munson, a member of the Architectural Committee for Corona Highlands, has indicated to her that the applicant submitted the proposed plans to the architectural committee one month prior to the last public hearing. . Mr. Esterbrook stated that he is Chairman of the Architectural Committee and that he was never made aware that the plans had been submitted. Commissioner Person reiterated that this item was continued from the last public hearing so that the residents of the area could meet with the applicant and further discuss the proposed project. Further, he stated that the proposed project has been properly noticed so that all interested parties have been informed about the public hearing. Chairman King stated that the applicant has contacted the community associations and agreed to a continuance from the last public hearing. He stated that the applicant has addressed . the concerns expressed by many of the residents and has floated balloons on the site for the community to view. He stated that perhaps the problem exists within the community associations and the residents, which have not adequately communicated the proposed project to its members. He stated that a project can not be continued indefinitely. I I I I I I 11 Commissioner Goff stated that the proposed 14 unit residential condominium development will be providing 32 parking spaces, which is in excess of 2 parking • spaces per unit. He stated that the project will be providing more parking than the minimum standard. -12- MINUTES January 19, 1984 X � r 9 m W a City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Hugh Milligan, resident of 500 Rockford Place, stated that last week he distributed flyers to residents of the area regarding the proposed project. He stated that approximately 30 residents of the area met with the developer last Saturday to discuss the proposed project. He stated that the developer floated balloons at the height of the proposed project, however, some of the balloons became tangled in the overhead telephone wires. Mr. Milligan expressed his concern that the proposed project may meet all of the requirements of the City regulations, however, he stated that concerns relating to health, safety and welfare of adjoining residents must also be considered by the City during their deliberations. Mr. H. Ross Miller, resident of 1627 Bay Cliff Circle, stated that he owns an apartment building in the Corolido Community Association. He stated that he received no notice of the public hearing. He expressed • his concern with the fast moving traffic in the area and stated that the proposed project will only add to the existing problem. He requested that this item be continued so that the affected residents and property owners of the area can also supply their input. Mr. Esterbrook stated that as President of the Corona Highlands Property Owners Association, he represents approximately 190 lots. He stated that the proposed project is too dense for the area and they are opposed to its approval. Mr. Ted Bush, resident of 508 Seaward Road, expressed his concern with the proposed density and size of the project. He stated that a project of this density will set a precedent for future development in the area. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Laycock stated that the density of the proposed project is allowable under the Zoning Code requirements for the R -3 -B zone. He stated that other R -3 zoned parcels within the City would also be entitled to the same density. -13- Ms. Valerie Porlier, resident of 512 Seaward Road, stated that the balloons were not in place on Monday, • as promised by the applicant. She stated that the -13- MINUTES January 19, 1984 � r a m City of Newport Beach m;o IIIIIIII R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX proposed project will generate noise which will adversely impact the canyon residents. She stated that the proposed project will set a precedence for the area and suggested that the property be down zoned in order to preserve the existing residential nature of the area. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 12079 Motion K. Motion was made for approval of Tentative Map of Tract Ayes:. X X X X K K No. 12079, subject to the findings and conditions of Absent * Exhibit "A ", with the revision to Condition No. 21 that one affordable unit shall be provided on -site, which MOTION CARRIED, 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 general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the Plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 6. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. • I I I ( I I I 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement will not substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. -14- MINUTES January 19, 1984 v � m City of Newport Beach R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I INDEX 8. The the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. The the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 10. That the discharge of water from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300 of the Water Code). • 11111111 1 �1Thatsa final map be filed. • 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the final map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with individual water services and sewer laterals to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 6. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department.and the Public Works Department. -15- � r ° � m y MINUTES January 19, 1984 of Newaort Beach INDEX 7. That a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Morning Canyon Road frontage and that the unused drive apron be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. A 4 foot wide property line concrete sidewalk shall also be constructed along the East Coast Highway frontage, including the construction of an access ramp at the corner of East Coast Highway and Morning Canyon Road. All work shall be completed under encroachment permits issued by the Public Works Department and the California Department of Transportation. The parkway area along East Coast Highway shall be landscaped and maintained by the adjoining development. 8. That the development have a minimum 24 foot wide entrance drive unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. • I I I I I I 9. That no grading shall occur in the area from the top of the slope (t12" from the most southeasterly garage wall) to the property line. 10. That no piling, fences or other disruption of the canyon shall occur. 11. That the canyon area shall be kept free of debris during the construction process. 12. That no structural encroachment into the canyon beyond those shown on the plans shall occur without further environmental documentation. 13. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 14. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris,: and other water pollutants. 15. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to . minimize impact of haul operations. -16- MINUTES January 19, 1984 3 x v � m City of Newport Beach E ROLL CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 16. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 17. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 18. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. • 19. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Department. 20. That prior to the approval of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall pay an in -lieu park dedication fee in accordance with the Park Dedication Ordinance and further that said fee shall be determined on the basis of the net increase in dwelling units (8 dwellings). 21. That one (1) of the units to be developed on -site, in conjunction with the proposed project shall be an "affordable unit ", selling for no more than three times the County Moderate income, (1208 of median) or renting for no more than thirty (306) percent of the County Median income at the time of occupancy. . 111111 j I 22. That the affordable nature of the unit shall be I guaranteed for a period of 10 years. -17- • January 19, 1984 m m m City of Newport Beach 23. That the affordable housing unit be available for occupancy either within 6 months of the occupancy of the first unit. 24. That prior to recordation of the final map, an agreement shall be executed that guarantees the provisions of an "affordable unit" on -site. Said agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney's Office, and approved by the City Council. 25. That a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements be prepared prior to recording of the final map with design to be approved by the Public Works Department. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. PERMIT NO. 3075 Motion Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3075, Ayes X X X X subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", Absent * as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINCS! 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 applicable standards plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval, except for proposed front yard encroachments, and an over -sized identification sign. 3. The.project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. lim MINUTES INDEX MINUTES January 19, 1984 n e m City of Newport Beach m 3 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX I 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan, and the Adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. That the proposed setbacks along Morning Canyon Road are comparable to the existing setbacks of other .properties in the area and the proposed building and chimney encroachments into the required front yard setback area, adjacent to Morning Canyon Road will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and . improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 7. That the proposed 8 sq.ft. identification sign adjacent to Morning Canyon Road, will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the proposed sign is in character with the established residential neighborhood in which the project is located and that the greater sign area represents only a minor variation to the Code requirement. 8. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and • I I I ( I I I improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -19- F o m m M January 19, 1984 Beach MINUTES N ROIL CALL 11 1 1 III 1 I INDEX • • CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit and that the remainder of the parking spaces shall be used for guest parking and shall be so identified. 3. That the design of the proposed vehicular ramp shall be subject to the Building Department approval and that the on site parking and vehicular circulation shall be subject to the further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. -4. That prior to the occupancy of any unit a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from East Coast Highway on the project does not exceed 65 db CHEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. 5. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. A report shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Building Department certifying said. 6. That all applicable handicap access and parking standards shall be met in a manner satisfactory to the Building and Public Works Departments. 7. That the proposed 8 sq.£t. single face identification sign is approved. 8. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent roads and adjoining properties. -20- MINUTES January 19, 1984 � r v m m a o r. City of Newport Beach E R O L L CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX 9. That all conditions of approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 12079 shall be fulfilled. 10. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the revised concept of grading along the northeasterly property line, as shown on the plan prepared by Harold B. Zook dated December 11, 1983. RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 4 Motion Motion was made for the approval of Residential Coastal Ayes X X X X Development Permit No. 4, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent * • � I I I I I � .I. * * * n U The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. * * * -21- COMMdSSIONERS MINUTES January 19, 1984 :E " m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX A. Draft Environmental Impact Report (Public Hearing) Item #3 Acceptance of an Environmental Document for General Plan Amendment No. 83 -2(a), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 599. AND DEIR GPA 83 -2 B. General Plan Amendment 83 -2(a) (Public Hearing) LCP #4 A 599 Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and CDP 5 Recreational Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to redesignate the Corona del Mar . Elementary School site from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional" uses to "Multiple- Family Residential" uses. AND • I I I I I I C. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 4 Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program so as to redesignate the Corona del Mar Elementary School site from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional" uses to "Multiple - Family Residential" uses. mi D. Amendment No. 599 (Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of the Corona del Mar Elementary School site. The proposal also includes a request to amend portions of Districting Map No. 16, so as to reclassify said property from the Unclassified District to the Planned Community District. AND E. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study in conjunction with • the construction of 41 residential dwelling units on the Corona del Mar School site. -22- ALL APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY MINUTES January 19, 1984 itv of Newport Beach INDEX ant Permit No. 5 Request to consider a residential coastal development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for the residential development of the Corona del Mar School site pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low and moderate - income housing within the coastal zone. LOCATION: Lots No. 1 -22, Block 531 and Lots No. 1 -22, Block 631, Corona del Mar Tract and an abandoned portion of Third Avenue, located on the southeasterly side of Carnation Avenue, between Second Avenue and Fourth Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: Unclassified PROPONENT: Gfeller Development Company, Inc., Tustin INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: Newport -Mesa Unified School District The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dave Neish of Urban Assist. Inc, representing the proponent, appeared before the Commission and stated that the presentation of the proposed project will take approximately 20 minutes. Motion X Motion was made to grant the proponent 20 minutes to Ayes X X K X X X present the proposed project to the Planning Absent * Commission, which MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Doug Wood, Project Manager, described the proposed project and site plan. He referred to an exhibit which depicted alternative site plans. He stated that the developer presented the proposed project to approximately 70 residents of the surrounding neighborhood and that the residents were in favor of I I I I ( I locating the public open space at the northern end of the property. -23- i �: m �o m MINUTES January 19, 1984 itv of Newport Beach INDEX ant Permit No. 5 Request to consider a residential coastal development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for the residential development of the Corona del Mar School site pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low and moderate - income housing within the coastal zone. LOCATION: Lots No. 1 -22, Block 531 and Lots No. 1 -22, Block 631, Corona del Mar Tract and an abandoned portion of Third Avenue, located on the southeasterly side of Carnation Avenue, between Second Avenue and Fourth Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: Unclassified PROPONENT: Gfeller Development Company, Inc., Tustin INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: Newport -Mesa Unified School District The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dave Neish of Urban Assist. Inc, representing the proponent, appeared before the Commission and stated that the presentation of the proposed project will take approximately 20 minutes. Motion X Motion was made to grant the proponent 20 minutes to Ayes X X K X X X present the proposed project to the Planning Absent * Commission, which MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Doug Wood, Project Manager, described the proposed project and site plan. He referred to an exhibit which depicted alternative site plans. He stated that the developer presented the proposed project to approximately 70 residents of the surrounding neighborhood and that the residents were in favor of I I I I ( I locating the public open space at the northern end of the property. -23- MINUTES January 19, 1984 X � r 9 m W City of Newport Beach W�o ROLL CALL { I I I I I I I I INDEX Mr. wood stated that the developer is not required to dedicate any public open space under the Subdivision Map Act, however, the developer is offering .52 acres for public open space purposes. He stated that the ultimate disposition of the land will be at the discretion of the City. He stated that alternatives would include the .52 acre use as passive open space, parking lot usage, or a combination of both uses. Mr. wood stated that the proposed project will be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. He stated that each unit .Will include a two car garage, plus an additional tandem stall for each unit. He stated that the developer has attempted to recreate a Corona del Mar custom style of architecture which will blend with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Neish stated that a Subdivision Map was approved and recorded in 1904 for this parcel. He stated that • the proposed project is approximately 50 percent less dense than the adjacent residential developments. He stated that the Planned Community Development Standards for the proposed project will meet or exceed the requirements of the R -1.5 and R -2 Districts in the area of the parcel. He stated that the total project will contain 41 residential units, including the four affordable units. He stated that providing four affordable units satisfies the requirements of the Housing Element. Mr. Neish stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department has expressed no interest in utilizing the subject property as park land and it is the Departments opinion that there is not a demonstrated park need in this area. Further, he stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department is concerned with the costs of improving and maintaining the land as a park site. He stated that the developer is dedicating to the City .52 acres for public open space purposes. Mr. Neish addressed the requested Traffic Study and stated that the applicant will be contributing fair share funds to the City for ultimate circulation system improvements. He stated that staff has indicated that the contributions by the developer will exceed • $100,000.00. He stated that the project will only be adding seven trips to the northbound only, East Coast Highway /Goldenrod intersection, during the critical p.m. peak hours. -24- January 19, 1984 F � m City of Newport Beach m ; O Mr. Neish stated that the proposed project will generate additional revenue for the Newport -Mesa Unified School District which will significantly benefit both the school district and the taxpayers of the City. Mr. Neish further stated that the benefits of the proposed project to the community, outweight the impacts the project may have upon transportation facilities. He requested that the Planning Commission grant the requested exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Neish referred to Page 16 of the staff report, Condition No. 3 relating to the Coastal Residential Development Permit, which states, "That the affordable housing units be available for occupancy within 6 month of the occupancy of the first unit." He stated that the 6 month timeframe may not be possible, and • F I I I t I I I requested that the developer meet with staff to arrive I I at a suitable timeframe which can be considered by the City Council. Mr. Neish referred to Page 6 of the staff report, and Page 7 of the proposed Planned Community text, relating to the five foot dedication of Carnation Avenue. He stated that they would not object if Carnation Avenue to Bayside Avenue were to be widened. However, he stated that they object to the widening of Carnation Avenue only at this location because significant traffic hazards would result which would be detrimental to the area. He clarified that they are not necessarily opposed to the dedication, if Carnation Avenue to Bayside Avenue were to be simultaneously widened. He requested that if the dedication is to be required, that the Planning Community text be amended to allow front yard setbacks to occur at 10 feet, rather than 15 feet. Mr. Neish referred to Page 8 of the proposed Planned Community text, relating to street lights, and stated that there are currently no street lights located in this area of Corona del Mar. He stated that after discussions with the residents of the area, they are requesting that the requirements for street lights be 0 1 1 deleted. -25- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES m January 19, 1984 3 R v m m ° City of Newport Beach moo INDEX Mr. Neish referred to Page 10 of the proposed Planned Community text, relating to the lighting plan of pedestrian walkways and parking areas, and stated that after discussions with the staff, it was determined that this item addresses the dedicated public open space area. He stated that the developer will have no control over the use, design, implementation, or maintenance of the dedicated property and therefore, any requirement of said property would fall under the jurisdiction of the various City departments. Chairman King concurred. Mr. Neish stated that the applicant would strongly oppose to being assessed an in -lieu fee, in that the applicant is dedicating to the City .52 acres for public open space purposes. He reiterated that because a Subdivision Map has been recorded on the property, the applicant is not required to make this dedication. He stated that imposing in -lieu fees, above and beyond • the applicant's dedication, would be considered unfair and excessive, and the price of the residential units would be impacted. Mr. Neish summarized that the proposed single family residential development is consistent with the overall land use plan for the community and the Municipal Code. He also stated that the lot size is compatible with the adjacent residential areas because the proposed project is 50 percent less dense. He stated that the proposed project either meets or exceeds all City residential standards for the zoning in Old Corona del Mar. In response to a questions posed by Chairman King, Mr. Robert Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney, stated that his office has investigated the validity of the 1904 Subdivision Tract Map. He noted that it has been indicated that a 1949 Assessor's parcel map delineates only the exterior boundaries of the property and his office was questioned as to the affect of the Assessor's map on the original 1904 Tract Map. Mr. Gabriele stated that the Assessor's map was used for purposes of assessing the property on the Assessor's tax roles. Further, that the Assessor's map was generated solely at the convenience of the County • Assessor's Office without reference to delineating the -26- MINUTES January 19, 1984 x r 9 ro 10 a ". City of Newport Beach W j O M ROLL CALL I I I I 1 1 1 1 I INDEX I interior lot line which would otherwise be applicable under normal circumstances in assessing the property. He stated that the Assessor's Office had indicated to him that since the property was solely owned by the school district and there there was no anticipated change in ownership or use, it was perceived that the Assessor's Office staff has created the 1949 map as an appropriate means of simplification for dealing with their concerns only. Mr. Gabriele stated that he obtained this information by contact with Yvonne Frances, and Murry Darch, who supervises the drafting technician with respect to that assessment function in the County Assessor's Office. He noted that the Assessor's Office had indicated that were the same situation to occur today, the policy of the Assessor's Office would be to delineate the interior lines. Mr. Gabriele concluded that from a legal standpoint, there is no particular significance • to the 1949 Assessor's Map for purposes of the actions being requested by the City. Mr. Gabriele then discussed the manner in which the school district has conveyed, or is in the process of conveying, its interest in the abandoned school. He stated that pursuant to the Educational Code, procedures are established requiring the school district to notify various governmental entities when they are about to abandon school property for purposes of permitting the governmental entities and quasi - governmental entities an opportunity to consider. leasing or purchasing of that property at a reduced price for recreational purposes. Mr. Gabriele noted that in the Educational Code, there is a provision for obtaining a waiver of the requirement to go through the process of actually making direct contact with the municipality. He stated that it has been indicated to the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department that the school district made efforts to comply with the Educational Code requirements of notice with respect to contacting the various municipalities and other entities.which might have an interest. However, he stated as as a result of preliminary efforts in this regard, that the school district determined it would be in its best interest to pursue State relief from the • requirements. The school district then made _27_ January 19, 1984 9 � W 8 5. 5. a City of Newport Beach � j O application pursuant to Educational Code Section 33050 to waive certain sections of the Education Code so that they could pursue opportunities to either sell or lease the property at fair market value. He stated that an application was submitted in December of 1982, the waiver was granted in January of 1983 and continued in force and affect, up to and including the date in which the Gfeller organization entered into escrow with the school board. Mr. Gabriele then commented on questions that had come to the attention of the City Attorney's Office as to the affect of any non - compliance with any of the provisions. of the Educational Code with respect to disposition of the school district property. He noted that pursuant to the Educational Code Sections 39382 • and 39400, the conveyance of the property without complete compliance with the Educational Code provisions dealing with notice, does not afford an opportunity on the part of municipality or anyone other than the municipality to enjoin completion or execution of the conveyance. Mr. Gabriele stated that the affect would be that the project could not be legally blocked directly, as a consequence of any deliberate or inadvertent non - compliance with the provisions. • In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, stated that the City is currently working on revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element. He stated that the City Council has established an Ad -Hoc Advisory Committee for the preparation of the revised Element. He stated that the subject parcel was analyzed in the process of preparing revisions to the Element and that the tentative conclusions of the City's consultant is that the site is not needed in this area for recreational and open space purposes. He stated that there are tentative recommendations regarding expansion of other sites in the Corona del Mar area for such purposes. 50M MINUTES INDEX MINUTES January 19, 1984 of Newport Beach v � a 72 5 1 m a ff IG ty M ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 III I I INDEX Mr. Robert Longacre, resident of 701 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Longacre expressed his concern that there is excessive traffic congestion on Fourth Street and Carnation Avenue. He suggested that Third Street be extended to relief the traffic congestion and provide additional on- street parking. He stated that a parking lot located on the northern end of the subject property would be undesirable. Mr. Irwin Fox, resident of 519 Carnation Avenue, stated that the proposed project preserves the residential quality of the Corona del Mar area and deserves a round of applause. He expressed his concern with the possibility of a parking lot being established at the northern end of the subject property. He stated that a commercial parking lot at this location would be an intrusion into the residential neighborhood and • generate litter and muggings, and reduce the property values in the immediate area. He stated that he objects to the proposed widening of Carnation Avenue between Second and Fourth Street and stated that this issue needs to be studied further. He also stated that he concurs with the developer, that the requirement for street lights be deleted. Ms. Dee Masters, representing the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, referred to her letter dated January 10, 1984, and stated that the design concept, appears to be compatible in relationship to surrounding properties. She stated that they recommend approval of the proposed project contingent upon the recommended use of the open space dedication for a metered and in -lieu parking lot appropriately landscaped. Ms. Masters stated that the mini -lot concept would best serve the strip commercial area in Corona del Mar. She stated that a parking lot which is properly maintained and landscaped would be considered a benefit to the residents of the area. She stated that the traffic which will be generated by this project does not appear so excessive as to be unacceptable. _29_ MINUTES January 19, 1984 F v m m m m. City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. H. Ross Miller, owner of property located at 432 Carnation Avenue, expressed his concern with the traffic congestion on Carnation Avenue, particularly during the summer months, and stated that additional traffic studies are needed in this area. He stated that he is opposed to the use of the dedicated open space as a parking lot. He stated that the proposed project will adversely impact the existing traffic congestion in the area. He further expressed his concern that the school district has neglected to offer this parcel to the City in accordance with the Educational Code.' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Gabriele stated it is his understanding that the City was informally contacted by the school district approximately 1' years ago as to their interest in the school site. He stated that the lease •. rate offered at the time was perceived as being extravagant and the City did not have sufficient interest to pursue this matter. He stated that the City was not formally notified pursuant to the requirements of the Educational Code. He further stated that the City has not been able to locate any correspondence which would support or negate this issue. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the traffic volumes on Carnation Avenue were identified, analyzed and discussed in the environmental impact.. report which was prepared for the proposed development. He stated that staff is recommending the widening of Carnation Avenue because of the analysis of the traffic volumes. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, stated that the school district has not given the City proper notice regarding this parcel. He stated that this will set a precedent for other schools within the City which are currently zoned for high density use. He stated that if the proposed zoning is not granted, the school district will have to offer the parcel to I I l I I I I I the City in accordance with the regulations of the Educational Code. -30- MINUTES January 19, 1984 3 X � r v m m m ° City of Newport Beach ■ R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX ■ Mr. Nichols stated that the subject parcel has had a recreational use on it from the beginning and would best serve the City as a recreational open space use, with a municipal parking lot located on the northern end of the subject property to serve the park use. He stated that this would be a good investment for the City to make. He stated that the City is seriously lacking active park land in the Corona del Mar area. Mr. Nichols then expressed his concern relating to the traffic in this area. He stated that the opening of Third Street would allow for a right turn lane onto East Coast Highway. He also expressed his concern with cross traffic and pedestrian traffic in the immediate area. He stated that he is opposed to the exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Nichols stated that if the proposal were to be revised to only utilized one -half of the property for • R -1 residential units, then Third Street could be opened, there would less of an impact to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and more active park land could be utilized. He stated that he would be able to support a revised project such as he described. Chairman King stated that the applicant would have to initially forfeiture approximately $150,000.00 to the school district. Mr. Nichols stated that in his opinion, the school site transaction is contingent upon the zoning approval of the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Nichols stated that he is speaking on behalf of several members of the Corona del Mar Community Association. However, he stated that the Association has not taken a position as yet, or drafted a letter on this issue. Mr. Nichols stated that the community has been mislead by the school district on this item. Commissioner Winburn stated that the taxpayers and the residents of the City will all be indirectly benefited by the sale of the school site. She stated that those benefits will help to repair and maintain the City schools. Mr. Nichols disagreed and stated that many of the benefits from the sale of the school site would go • I I I I I I i I to the City of Costa Mesa schools, also. He stated that the residents of the City of Newport Beach will not enjoy the benefits from such a sale. -31- MINUTES January 19, 1984 r s r $ n m m City of Newport Beach IIIIIII ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Ms. Linda Williams, resident of 508 Begonia Avenue, referred to a letter dated January 18, 1984, submitted by the Citizens for Responsible Use of Neighborhood Schools. She stated that they are opposed to the property being utilized as a parking lot of any kind. She stated that the proposed plan showing a park at the northern end of the property, with no off - street parking, is favored by the citizens of the area. Mr. Al Learned, resident of 607 Begonia Avenue, suggested that the developer purchase two parcels on Fourth Street and Carnation and construct a parking lot at this location. He stated that in this way, the parking needs of the area could be accommodated closer to East Coast Highway, rather than further impacting the residential area. Mr. Bill Markas, resident of 609 Carnation Avenue, stated that the proposed project would greatly improve • the overall area. He stated that if a proper buffer were to be established, perhaps a parking area would benefit the area. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Markas stated that a 60 foot buffer from the parking area, rather than a 30 foot buffer, would be more compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Hogne, resident of 426 Fernleaf Avenue, expressed his concern that additional parking will generate additional traffic to the area. Mr. Neish stated that the Third Street right -of -way was vacated by the City in 1944. He stated that the opening of Third Street would only create more traffic problems in the area. He further stated that the Traffic Study contained in the environmental impact report addressed all of the traffic concerns on Carnation Street and all of the streets immediately adjacent to the project, including the analysis of approximately 24 intersections. He also stated that the proposed development will provide alleys which are 20 feet wide, which are far superior to the 14 foot wide alleys which are typically found in the Corona del Mar area. -32- MINUTES January 19, 1984 � r 5 n m City, of Newport Beach m j O M ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 J i l l I INDEX 1 Mr. Neish stated that the developer is dedicating .52 acres for public open space use which is above and beyond which would be required by the City. He stated that if a new resubdivision of the property were needed, the City would require the developer to dedicate .44 acres, whereas, the developer is prepared to dedicate .52 acres for public open space use. Mr. Lenard referred to Condition No. 3 of the Coastal Residential. Development Permit and suggested the following wording, "That the agreement shall include a provision that the occupancy of the affordable units be phased with the occupancy of the market rate units." He stated that this would also apply to Page 6, Item No. 9, of the Planned Community text. Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, stated that 8 foot . travel lanes on Carnation Avenue, are not adequate. He stated that staff has suggested that the curb to curb width be widened by 6 feet, to allow parking on both sides of the street and allow for 10-� foot travel lanes. He stated that the staff has recommended street lighting for the proposed project, however, he stated that the Planning Commission has the, authority to delete this condition. Mr. Talarico stated that staff would not object to a 10 foot setback, rather than a 15 foot setback, when considering the 5 foot dedication by the applicant along the easterly side of Carnation Avenue. Mr. Talarico stated that staff has suggested that the applicant shall contribute a negotiated sum of money to be determined by the City Council, but not less than those fees that would be collected by the Park Dedication Ordinance (in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit) should the project have required processing of a subdivision map, to be used for those purposes outlined in the Park Dedication Ordinance. He stated that this has been applied to other approved projects within the City, such as the • Banning and CalTrans developments. -33- MINUTES January 19, 1984 r a e A � w. City of Newport Beach �o M ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Lenard stated that the current park dedication fees would amount to approximately $150,000.00. However, he stated that the City is currently in the process of reappraising the park dedication fees. He stated that the applicant would have to contribute the amount of park dedication fees in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Motion X Motion was made for the approval of the Environmental Ayes X X X X X X Impact Report subject to Exhibit "A ", as follows, which Absent * MOTION CARRIED: 1. Approve the Draft EIR, City of Newport Beach, Corona del Mar Elementary School Site - General • Plan Amendment 83 -2(a) and supportive materials thereto; 2. Recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Document is complete; 3. Direct staff to prepare a Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and 4. Make the Findings listed below: Findings 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific • I I 1 I ( I economic, social or other considerations make tI infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. -34- MINUTES January 19, 1984 a m ° 0 1 City of Newport Beach M R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 4. That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval. The Findings made in regards to approval of the GPA 83 -2(a) "Corona del Mar Elementary School Site" project EIR apply also to the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 599 and the Traffic Study. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -2 Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1108, recommending an amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan to the City Council as proposed by the • applicant, and incorporating all revisions adopted by the Planning Commission, and incorporating the Findings listed in "A" above of this Exhibit related to this portion of the project, including that Item No. 5 of the Land Use Element Resolution be revised to provide that a 120 foot by 250 foot open space area along Fourth Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach and that the City of Newport Beach designate one -half of the dedicated property for an open space park and the other one -half as a parking lot for approximately 39 vehicles. Commissioner McLaughlin asked if the motion included the provision that the developer be required to pay the necessary park dedication fees. Chairman King expressed his concern with the park dedication fees being imposed upon the applicant. He stated that other projects which were conditioned with park dedication fees, such as Caltrans, Banning, North Ford and Belcourt, all contained a .significant number of residential units, whereas, he stated that the proposed project contains only 41 residential units. He stated that he would oppose the imposition of park dedication fees, in view of the fact that the developer has voluntarily stated that they will dedicated .52 . acres for public open space purposes. -35- MINUTES January 19, 1984 3 � � r v m m m ° City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Person concurred with the comments made by Chairman King and stated that he would amend his motion to not require the developer to pay park dedication fees, which would delete Item No. 6 from the Land Use Element Resolution. Commissioner Person stated that he attended the Corona del Mar Elementary School. He stated that whenever a residential area immediately abuts a commercial zone, problems related to traffic and parking are not uncommon. He stated that increasing the buffer zone between the parking area and the residential area should help to alleviate some of the problems. He stated that the use of the dedicated open space as a park area and a parking lot will benefit both the residential area and the commercial uses. Chairman King concurred. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that in order to balance the project, there are to be exceptional circumstances • to override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. She stated that she had considered the provision of park dedication fees as a portion of the exceptional circumstances. Therefore, she stated that deleting the provision of park dedication fees would not be acceptable. She stated that overriding the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would be precedent setting, and this would be the first project in which it had been done. Amended Motion X Amended Motion by Commissioner Person to adopt Ayes X X X X X Resolution No. 1108, recommending an amendment to the Noes K Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Absent * Space Elements of the General Plan to the City Council as proposed by the applicant, and incorporating all revisions adopted by the Planning Commission, and incorporating the Findings listed in "A" above of this Exhibit related to this portion of the project, including that Item No. 5 of the Land Use Element Resolution be revised to provide that a 120 foot by 250 foot open space area along Fourth Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach and that the City of Newport Beach designate one -half of the dedicated property for an open space park and the other one -half as a parking lot for approximately 39 vehicles, and the deletion of Item No. 6 of the Land • 11 I I I I I Use Element Resolution, relating to the park dedication fees, was now voted on, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED. -36- of dSSK)NERS] January 19, 1984 MINUTES n x 9 m m c ? 4 x a N 7 C of Newport Beach M R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Motion Ayes Absent r 1 LJ I� U C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 4 Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1109, 'X X recommending to the City Council an amendment to the * Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Corona del Mar School site and incorporating all revisions adopted by the Planning Commission and incorporating the Findings listed in "A" above of this Exhibit related to this portion of the project, which MOTION CARRIED. D. AMENDMENT NO. 599 Chairman King stated that there is presently not adequate space on Carnation Avenue to allow two -way traffic. Mr. Webb stated that if the roadway is not eventually widened, parking may be prohibited on one side of the street. He stated that the 5 foot dedication and 6 foot widening of the roadway would at least allow the street parking to remain in this area. Commissioner Goff asked if the requested dedication and widening improvement costs will apply to the developers future fair share contribution to the circulation system. Commissioner Person stated that the costs relating to the development of the proposed project for dedication and widening, will not apply to the developers future fair share contribution towards the circulation system. Commissioner Person stated that he envisions that the number of dwelling units will be reduced by two units, for a total of 39 units, throughout the Planned Community based upon the additional 30 feet of dedication. Mr. Talarico concurred and stated that the number of units will be adjusted throughout the P -C text. -37- MF1 MINUTES January 19, 1984 F z m m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1110, RESOLUTION Ayes X X X 19 X recommending that the City Council adopt the P -C NO. 1110 Absent * Development Plan and District Regulations as indicated in Attachment I; and amending portions of District Map No. 16 reclassifying the site from the "U" District to the "P -C" District; and Page 6, Item No. 9 of the P -C text be revised as follows, "That the agreement shall include a provision that the occupancy of the affordable units be phased with the occupancy of the market rate units. "; provision for the open space park and parking lot area as approved in the General Plan Amendment; 10 foot front setbacks along Carnation Avenue, rather than 15 foot setbacks; the street light requirement shall be deleted; dedication and widening improvements shall take place; and, the total number of dwelling units shall be reduced by two units, for a total of 39 units, throughout the P -C text, based upon the additional 30 feet of dedication, which MOTION • CARRIED. Cl E. TRAFFIC STUDY In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Talarico suggested that Finding No. 2, relating to the Traffic Study, be worded as follows, "That the Traffic Study indicates that the project generated traffic will be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on one leg of the critical intersections. The intersection will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service with an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of greater than 0.90." Commissioner Person stated that the Traffic Study did not take into consideration the provision of the open space park and parking lot area. He also stated that the Traffic Study was based upon the development of 41 units, rather than the reduction of two units, for a total of 39 units, to be constructed on the site. He stated that these items would further mitigate the impacts of the Traffic Study. mum January 19, 1984 73,5 m City of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff concurred with the statements made by Commissioner Person. He stated that the following vote on the Traffic Study is significant in that this may be the first time that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance may be overridden. He referred to Finding No. 3 of the Traffic Study and suggested that the word "nor" be replaced with the word "or ", for clarification purposes. Chairman King stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance provides for an override in exceptional cases such as this. He stated that this area in Corona del Mar has circulation difficulties because of the way in which it was originally developed. He stated that traffic flows through this intersection because it lacks the opportunity to be resolved in other areas. Therefore, he stated that the proposed project and its mitigating • measures warrants an exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Motion X Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study, Ayes X X X X X making the Findings, based upon the Facts and subject Noes X to the Conditions listed in Exhibit "A ", with the Absent * revision to Finding No. 2 as suggested by staff, replacing the word "any" with the word "one "; and, the revision to Finding No. 3 suggested by Commissioner Goff, replacing the word "nor" with the word "or ", which MOTION FAILED. • Chairman King stated that the Traffic Study did not receive the necessary 4 /5ths vote from the Planning Commission, therefore, the Traffic Study was not approved. -39- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES January 19, 1984 � r v � m m °. City of Newport Beach INDEX F. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5 Motion X Motion was made for the approval of Coastal Residential Ayes % X X X X K Development Permit No. 5, subject to the Findings and Absent - * Conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the revision to Condition No. 3, "That the agreement for the affordable housing units shall include a provision that the occupancy of the affordable units be phased with the occupancy of the market rate units "i and, that the reference to 41 units be revised to reflect 39 units as approved in the General Plan Amendment, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: Findings 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the • State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project. 5. That based upon the information presented to the City, if thirty -nine (39) units were to be developed on -site, four (4) affordable units could be provided on -site. I ( I I 6. That based upon the information presented to the City, if thirty -nine (39) units were to be developed on -site there would be no social, technical, environment or related problem I I ( I I I associated with the provision of four (4) of said units as affordable housing units. -40- �Y \7 ♦tlJJM RIW � - � - - � �� January 19, 1984 m = W m City of Newport Beach moo 7. That based upon the information presented to the City, if thirty -nine (39) units were to be developed on -site, four (4) units could be provided as affordable housing units and allow a reasonable return on investment. 8. That development on this site is not exempt from the provisions of State Law relative to low and moderate income housing units within the coastal zone. 9. That the approval of this permit shall advise this applicant and any successor in interest that the provision of affordable housing units on this site is feasible and needs to be assumed in any sale, lease, trade or other use of said property. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Conditions 1. That a minimum of ten percent (108), of the units to be developed in conjunction with the proposed project shall be "affordable units ", selling for no more than three times County median income, or renting for no more than.thirty (308) percent of the County Median income at the time of occupancy. 2. That the affordable nature of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of 10 years. 3. That the agreement shall include a provision that the occupancy of the affordable units be phased with the occupancy of the market rate units. 4. That prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permit, an agreement shall be executed that guarantees the provisions of "affordable units" on -site. Said agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney's office, and approved by the City Council. • I! I I I I I -41- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES January 19, 1984 3 F p m a m . City of Newport Beach M ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 1 Mr. Doug Gfeller, the proponent, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Gfeller thanked the staff and the Planning Commission for their time and efforts in evaluating the project. He stated that the project will benefit the City, as well as the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Gfeller stated that for the record, he objects to the decisions made this evening relating to the additional fees and increasing the amount of dedication. He stated that these additional costs can not be borne by small projects such as this. He stated that if the City continues to place the burden of solving the open space, traffic and parking problems on the few remaining parcels within the City, it becomes uneconomical for the projects to occur. Even worse, he stated that the remaining developments will be forced • to take cost cutting steps, which will not be in keeping with the quality of development for the City of Newport Beach. r1 U • x The Planning Commission recessed at 11:10 p.m. and reconvened at 11:15 p.m. -42- COMNNSSIONERS MINUTES January 19, 1984 A ? m m m o w. City Of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX A. Resubdivision No. 769 (Public Hearing) Item #4. Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes. Motion Ayes X X X Absent AND RESUB- B. Use Permit No. 3079 (Public Hearing) 7 Request to permit the construction of a 2 -unit residential condominium development and related garage spaces on property located in the R -3 District. AND LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 16, Eastside Addition, - Balboa Tract, located at 1015 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard, between "B" USE PERMIT Street and "C ". Street, on the Balboa NO. 3079 Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Bill Deane, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Philip C. Mostajo and Associates, Santa Ana The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Philip Mostajo, architect, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and requested approval of the resubdivision and use permit. Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 769, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", as follows, 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. -43- APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY MINUTES January 19, 1984 � r v m m m m. City of Newport Beach R O L L CALL I I I I III I I INDEX 1 2. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an • individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That the existing drive apron be reconstructed along the East Balboa Boulevard frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, and that the work be completed prior to final inspection of the building by the Building Department or release of utilities. Motion. x Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3079, Ayes X X X % X subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", Absent * as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. I I I I I I 2 The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new • I I I I I I I I buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. -44- January 19, 1984 m S m X ° W City of Newport Beach moo 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3079 will not, under the circumstances of the 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 injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONDITIONS • 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That a minimum of one accessible parking space and one tandem parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 769 be fulfilled. 4. That the proposed third floor living area and deck shall be revised so as to be in conformance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition). This condition will necessitate a second stairway from the third level living area to the ground level, and a third level to maintain 4 foot side yard setbacks. * * R -45- MINUTES INDEX r v � ao . v w s d 7C Gf ro January 19, 1984 of Newport Beach MINUTES M ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX F Resubdivision No. 770 (Public Hearing) Item #5 Request to establish one parcel of land and eliminate an interior lot line where two lots presently exist so as to permit the construction of an off -site parking area in conjunction with the development of property located at 2800 Lafayette Avenue. LOCATION: Lots 27 and 28, Block 225, Lancaster's - RESUB- Addition, located at 2805 Villa Way, on DIVISION the northwesterly corner of Villa Way NO. 770 and 28th Street in Cannery Village. ZONE: M -1 APPLICANT: Ruth Zimmerman, Newport Beach OWNER: Delaney Trust, Riverside ENGINEER: Rom Land Surveying, Costa Mesa • Commissioner Person stated that due to a possible conflict of interest, he would not be participating or voting upon this item. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Jeannette expressed his concern with Condition No. 7, relating to the construction of a storm drain. Chairman King stated that the applicant is converting a warehouse building into an office building. He stated that this type of project does not support the construction of a storm drain in the street. He stated that he has discussed this issue with the applicant and that the applicant is agreeable in contributing their fair share for that improvement, should it be required. He stated that a fair share condition would be more appropriate for this type of development. Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, clarified that the application before the Planning Commission is for the resubdivision of the parking lot area. Chairman King stated that the original • I I j I I I conditions placed upon this project did not include the I specific requirement that the applicant construct a storm drain. -46- CONDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 19, 1964 � F X o Cit of Newport Beach 3 ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, stated that the subject area currently has no improvements such as curbs and gutters. He further stated that the subject area experiences serious drainage problems. He stated that Condition No. 7 provides for a storm drain, if needed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Webb stated that the storm drain costs could range from $10,000 to $15,000. Chairman King stated that there is a great potential for redevelopment and improvement to the surrounding parcels in the immediate future. He stated that this would give the City several opportunities to obtain fair share contributions from the surrounding parcels as they develop, for such improvements. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Laycock stated that any new development in the subject area would require the approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. Chairman King suggested that it may be possible to bond for the improvement for the projected fair share, based upon an estimate of the work to be completed. Mr. Webb stated that this would necessitate tearing up the new pavement to install a storm drain, which would scar the pavement. Mr. Jeannette stated that the applicant will be installing approximately $5,000 worth of improvements to the parking area of the subject site. He stated that it would not be feasible for the applicant to pay an additional $15,000 for the construction of a storm drain in the street. He stated that the applicant is willing to contribute her fair share towards the storm drain, if needed, but not the entire cost. Motion Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 770, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the revision to Condition No. 7 as follows, "That this development allocate a fair share of the total cost of improvements to be agreed upon by the applicant and the Public Works Department." • -47- r V %I T Y.JJIVl January 19, 1984 3 X �e 9�: a . City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that this would be the first instance in which a fair share contribution would have to be determined for a specific drainage area. He stated that this may difficult, but the staff can attempt to make such a determination. Substitute Substitute Motion was made for the approval of Motion X Resubdivision No. 770, with the revision that the applicant contribute the front end money, with the understanding that it will be reimbursed by the City, on a fair share basis for a five year period. Chairman King stated that he could not support the substitute motion because the applicant would have to pay all of the money up front and would be losing her money through the inflationary cycle. • Commissioner Goff stated that the subject area is in need of many improvements. He stated that if one applicant is singled out to pay for all of the improvements up front, the improvements will never happen.. He stated that small increments for each new development would be more feasible. Commissioner Kurlander stated that if the substitute motion included a fixed amount of money, the applicant would not be taking a risk on the fixed amount, as opposed to a fair share amount. He stated that in this way, the improvements could be constructed and the applicant could be reimbursed a fair share amount from each of the developments. Chairman King asked if the applicant would be agreeable to paying $5,000 up front, towards the storm drain, if needed. Mr. Jeannette stated that the applicant would be agreeable to this. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern that if the other improvements as listed in Condition No. 7 take place prior to the construction of the storm drain, the improvements will begin to deteriorate because the water will not drain properly, until the storm drain is • in place. SM MINUTES INDEX r V % r V l✓. 11.V January 19, 1984 z a m `City of Newport Beach moo MINUTES ROLL CALL I III III 1 I INDEX Commissioner Goff suggested that all of the improvements listed in Condition No. 7 be constructed at the same time that the total money for the storm drain is collected. Mr. Webb stated that this would necessitate the applicant paying for certain improvements twice. He stated that the applicant would have to remove the improvements and regrade the property so that the new improvements would fit. Ayes X X Noes X X X Substitute .Motion by Commissioner McLaughlin was now Abstain X voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Absent AMENDED Chairman King amended his motion for approval of MOTION X Resubdivision No. 770, for Condition No. 7 to include, Ayes X X X X "That the applicant agrees to pay up -front a maximum of Noes X $5,000.00, as her fair share contribution towards the Abstain X construction of the storm drain.. If not needed, the �ent * contribution will be refunded to the applicant ", which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED, 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 general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents .no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS! 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. -49- rVX1VMX*_ NLF%JV . January 19, 1984 F m City of Newport Beach moo 3. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a building permit before the public improvements are completed. 4. That full width concrete alley pavement be constructed in the alley parallel to Newport Boulevard, extending from 28th Street to the northerly line of Lot 27, Block 225, Lancaster's Addition. 5. That a fifteen foot radius corner cutoff at the southwesterly corner of Villa Way and 28th Street be dedicated to the public. . 6. That the existing underground fuel storage facility located on the subject property shall be • removed or filled in accordance with the requirements of the Building Department. r1 U 7. That all improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and paveout) be constructed along the Villa Way and 28th Street frontages of Lots 27 and 28, Block 225, Lancaster's Addition with an access ramp to be constructed at the corner of Villa Way and 28th Street. That the applicant agrees to pay up -front a maximum of $5,000.00 as her fair share contribution towards the construction of the storm drain, if needed. If not needed, the contribution will be refunded to the applicant. 8. That the street improvements be shown on standard improvements plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. -50- MINUTES INDEX � r m m Cat \� Of ° J�, January 19, 1984 MINUTES W ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX t A. NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 6 (Discussion) Request to approve a phasing plan to permit the construction of additional office space at 1100 Quail Street beyond that presently permitted by the approved Traffic Phasing Plan. AND B. AMENDMENT NO. 597 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the previously approved Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations.so as to allow the expansion of an existing office building located in "Professional and Business Office Sites 1 and 2." The proposal also includes a request to amend the requirements for off - street parking for office uses from one parking space per 225 sq. ft. to one parking • I I I I I I I space per 300 sq. ft. subject to the approval of a use permit and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND C. USE PERMIT NO. 3080 (Public Hearing) Request to consider a reduction of the number of required off - street parking spaces from one parking space for each 225 sq. ft. of net floor area to one parking space for each 300 sq. ft. of net floor area. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking in conjunction with an addition to an existing office building located in "Professional and Business Office Sites No. 1 and 2 ", of the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 48 -11 (Resubdivision.No. 363), located at 1100 Quail Street, on the northeasterly side of Quail Street between Dove Street and Westerly Place, in the Newport Place Planned Community. • -51 Item #6 TPP NO.6 A 597 to Febru- ary 9, 1984 COMMSSONERS MINUTES January 19, 1984 f y m = m a m City of Newport Beach pO �� ROLL CAU I I I 1 1 1 INDEX APPLICANT: Quail Street Partners, Newport Beach OWNER: . Same as Applicant Staff and the applicants requested t subject applications be continued to Commission Meeting of February 9, continuance is needed to allow the complete the submittal and staff to necessary environmental document. hat the above the Planning 1984. The applicant to complete the Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning All Ayes. X X X X X X * Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * I I I I I I I I Variance No. 1110 (Public Hearing) lItem #7 Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing nonconforming duplex that exceeds 1.5 times the buildable area of the site so as to allow the applicant to demolish existing floor area, and to VARIANCE reconstruct approximately the same amount of floor area NO. 1110 on the site. LOCATION: Lot 18, Block 8, Section 1, Balboa Island Tract, located at 211 Agate Avenue, on the westerly side of Agate APPROVED Avenue, between Park Avenue and North CONDI- Bay Front, on Balboa Island. TIONALLY ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Steve Whittington, Balboa Island OWNER: - Same as Applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, representing the • applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. -52- � r m m January 19, 1984 of Newport Beach MINUTES M R O L L CAU I I I I III I I INDEX 1 is C, J Mr. Jeannette referred to an exhibit which he had prepared and described the proposed alterations to the existing structure. He stated that the proposed remodel will have a net decrease of approximately five square feet to the structure. He stated that allowing this home to be remodeled without adding square footage is a fair use of the property. However, he stated that requiring the applicant to remove 485 square feet of liveable area creates a hardship and is a deprivation of the applicant's property rights. Mr. Jeannette then submitted six letters from adjacent residents of the area which are in support of the proposed variance. Mr. Walter Smith, resident of 206 Pearl Avenue, stated that the proposed remodel would be a great improvement for Balboa Island. He stated that the applicant should not be penalized with the removal of 485 square feet, for remodeling his property. Ms. Kirstie Helman, stated that she lives directly across the street from the subject property. She stated that the proposed remodel will be an asset to the community. Mr. Steve Whittington, the applicant, requested that the Planning Commission approve the variance. He stated that he would like to raise his family in the remodeled house. Mr. Jeannette stated that when the applicant purchased the home, he was not informed that if he would ever want to remodel the structure, it would have to meet the 1.5 times the buildable area requirement. He stated that this has created the applicant a hardship. Mr. Jeannette emphasized that the variance request should be considered individually. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, stated that the applicant is proposing to tear down the front portion of the structure to the concrete slab. He stated that. development within the R -1.5 District may not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site without a variance. -53- January 19, 1984 � r v ro m a m ° City of Newport Beach W;o Chairman King stated that this particular request can be considered unique because the entire structure is not being demolished and additional square footage will not be added to the remodel. He stated that open space will be added to the remodel which does not exist in the current structure. He further stated that the remodel will improve the character of the neighborhood. He stated that each project presented before the Planning Commission is considered on an individual basis. Commissioner Person concurred. Commissioner Goff asked how many existing homes on Balboa Island could possibly ask for a similar variance. Mr. Laycock stated that many of the existing dwellings on Balboa Island exceed the 1.5 times the buildable area requirement. Commissioner Goff stated that he concurs with the statements made by Chairman King. • Commissioner Kurlander expressed his concern that approval of this variance will set a precedence. He stated that the City can expect a flood of variance applications for similar requests. Commissioner Winburn stated that the remodel will also enhance the exterior of the building which has the support of the adjacent residents. Commissioner King stated that the proposed project will also be adding energy saving measures. Motion I I X Motion was made for approval of Variance No. 1110, Ayes X X subject to the, findings and conditions of Exhibit "B ", Noes X X with an additional finding that this is a unique Absent * .situation and will not set a precedent, which MOTION ,CARRIED, as follows: • FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and will not preclude the attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. -54- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES January 19, 1984 City of Newport Beach INDEX 3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property is substantially developed in a manner that would preclude the removal of sufficient floor area so as to comply with the gross floor area limitations for the R -1.5 District. 4. That the granting of a variance to the allowable building area is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant in that the proposed alterations will not increase the gross floor area of the structure over that which presently exists, and further that • said floor area is comparable to a majority of the residential development on Balboa Island. 5. The proposed alterations do not add additional living space or increase the number of rooms presently located within the duplex. Therefore, no additional off - street parking space is required. 6. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will not, under the circumstances of the 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 detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. That the proposed alterations are considered unique and will not set a precedent. • 1 111 1111 -55- R] January 19, 1984 Beach MINUTES M R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • Motion Ayes Absent 0 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That one garage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit on the property. * k Site Plan Review No. 33 (Discussion) Request to permit the expansion of an existing commercial building on property located in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted. The additional required off- street parking spaces will be provided in an existing parking lot across the alley from the building site, which is in common ownership. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block F, Tract No. 323, located at 2831 East Coast Highway, on the westerly side of East Coast. Highway, between Goldenrod Avenue and Heliotrope Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Eric D. Welton, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as Applicant The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Eric Welton, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this item. Motion was made for approval of Site Plan Review No. X 1X11 33, subject to the following findings and conditions of k Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINCS! 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -56- F � v c m n �_ m 0 ' m R] January 19, 1984 Beach MINUTES M R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • Motion Ayes Absent 0 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That one garage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit on the property. * k Site Plan Review No. 33 (Discussion) Request to permit the expansion of an existing commercial building on property located in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted. The additional required off- street parking spaces will be provided in an existing parking lot across the alley from the building site, which is in common ownership. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block F, Tract No. 323, located at 2831 East Coast Highway, on the westerly side of East Coast. Highway, between Goldenrod Avenue and Heliotrope Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Eric D. Welton, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as Applicant The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Eric Welton, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this item. Motion was made for approval of Site Plan Review No. X 1X11 33, subject to the following findings and conditions of k Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINCS! 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -56- MINUTES January 19, 1984 p m City of Newport Beach M R O L L Cau 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 2. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 3. The proposed development is a high - quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 5. The proposed development will not preclude the attainment of the specific area plan objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • 6. The proposed development promotes the maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoining major thoroughfares of City -wide importance. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the total gross floor area on the subject property shall not exceed 5,459± sq.ft. 3. That a restrictive convenant, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, guaranteeing continuous use of twenty -two parking spaces for the benefit of the proposed building at 2431 East Coast Highway, at the existing parking lot at the southeasterly corner of Goldenrod Avenue and Second Avenue, shall be recorded with the County • 1 I I( 1' I I Recorder. -57- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 19, 1984 � x a e a m Cit y of Newport Beach ROLL CAL INDEX 4. The handicap parking space shall be marked in a manner approved by the Traffic Engineer and the Building Department. 5. The location and size of the handicap space shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. Planning Commission Review No. 4 (Discussion) Item #9 Request to construct roof -top solar equipment on an existing structure that exceeds the basic height limit in the R -3 District. • LOCATION: Lot 104, Tract No. 3813, located at 5515 PLANNING River Avenue, on the southwesterly side COMMISSION of River Avenue between 54th Street, and REVIEW West Coast Highway, in Nest Newport. NO. 4 ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: RITEMP, Tustin APPROVED OWNER: Douglas Huang, Newport Beach CONDI- Chairman King noted that due to the lateness of the hour, the applicant was not present. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern that the existing structure and grounds are in .poor condition. However, he stated that the poor condition of the existing structure does not relate to the request to construct roof -top solar equipment. Motion Motion was made for approval of Planning Commission Ayes X X X Review No. 4, subject to the following findings and Absent conditions of Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED: • -58- f $ y m W o_ W January 19, 1984 Beach MINUTES IIIIIIII R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • Motion i Ayes X FTATITTTCC. 1. The proposed solar equipment will be lower than the existing stairway and elevator shaft towers on the residential structure. 2. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the structure and the surrounding area. 3. The proposed solar equipment will not intrude on views, or light and air, from adjoining residential property. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, roof plan, and elevations. 2. That the proposed solar equipment shall comply with the City's Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes. +e r General Plan Amendment 83 -1(b) (Public Hearing) Consideration of an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, for property located within Area 11 of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community, more specifically identified as all the property included in Annexation No. 89, so as to establish a designation of "Low- Density Residential" uses for the subject property. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Staff requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984. Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning * Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. x -59- . #10 -1 C0MMSSI0NERS MINUTES January 19, 1984 � r a m City of New rt Beach PO ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The Commission scheduled a Study Session on February 23, 1984, at 3:00 p.m. so as to discuss the updated Fiscal Impact Analysis System and the updated City's Traffic Model. The Commission requested that the Assistant City Attorney prepare a policy guideline statement related to information submitted by applicants or the public after 5:00 p.m . on the day prior to a Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Person from the All Ayes X X X X * Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. • There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 12:20 a.m. * * * James Person, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission i=