Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1981COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES Time: 7:30 p.m. a Date: February 5, 1981 ra X City of New Wt Beach L CALL INDEX Present X X X Absent * Commissioner McLaughlin was absent. * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 1981, was con- tinued for two weeks in that the Commission had not had sufficient time for their review. * * * Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 7, Use Permit No. 1975, which included a request, for a modification, has requested that this item be withdrawn. Planning - Director Hewicker stated that the modification request could be handled by the Modifications Committee. Chairman Haiding stated that the modification request for a change in the parking standards should be considered by the Planning Commission Commissioner Balalis suggested that the staff be directed to send the modification request directly to the Planning Commission for determination. Mr. Robert Borders, the architect, representing Far West Savings and Loan, appeared before the Commi.ssion and stated that they would be agree - able to a two week continuance on the modifica- tion request. r� L o �D �h. February 5, 1981 Zi MINUTES I RW CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Chairman Haidinger requested that Agenda Item Nos 8 and 10 be heard together, in that they pertain to adjacent properties. Motion X Motion was made to continue Item No. 7, the All Ayes X * X X Z X modification request, to the. meeting of February 19, 1981, and to change the order of Agenda Item Nos. 8 and 9, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * A request of BEECO, Ltd., Newport Beach, con - cerning.a proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan on portions of the Banning - Newport Ranch-generally located in.West Newport Beach, . northerly of Coast Highway. INITIATED BY: The City .of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that BEECO, Ltd., had originally requested.that the CALTRANS • West parcel also be included in this request. He stated that it would be appropriate to delete the CALTRANS West parcel from this request at this time, inasmuch as the Local Coastal Program has designated the entire parcel as Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. David Neish of.Urban.Assist, re- presenting BEECO, Ltd., appeared before the Commission. Mr. Neish explained to the Commissio the areas being requested for redesignation. He stated that they are currently preparing the Planned Community text and suggested that the General'Plan Amendment and the Planned Community text be discussed at the same time. In res.ponse to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Neish stated that they`a.nt.icipate submitting the P -C text to the Commission in March. Mrs. Louise Greeley, representing the Newport Crest Homeowners' Association, which is located adjacent to the BEECO property, appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Greeley stated that the • POSED MENT INITIATED K �s w S�� N 7c 4i February 5, 1981 Of MINUTES Beach INDEX possibility ping center She stated, the traffic be generated that they ar Street and t parcel. She be vacated, their entire of a retail /service commercial shop - is appealing to their community. however, that they are concerned with and noise related problems that will by the shopping area. She stated e also concerned with Ticonderoga he bluff portion of the CALTRANS West stated that Ticonderoga Street shoul as this is the only public street in complex. Commissioner Balalis asked Mrs. Greeley if it is the Association's desire.for Ticonderoga Street to become a.private street. Mrs. Greeley con - curred. Commissioner Balalis recommended that the abandonment of Ticonderoga Street be studied in the EIR. Commissioner.Allen referred to the area adjacent to proposed.Balboa.Boulevard between 15th Street and 16th Street and stated that she would like to see the general indu.strial impacts and design • features addressed for.this area in the EIR. She also stated that rec.reatio.nal facilities should be addressed as an alternat.ive in the EIR, as a buffer between the multi- family residential and industrial zones. Commissioner Thomas stated that the EIR should take the action of the Coastal Commission into account on the lower parcel. He stated that the .boundaries of this general plan amendment should be considered as one large parcel, so that the entire project may be eval.uated. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the multi- family residential portion be considered for higher density rental uni.ts. He stated that the issue of rental units, as opposed to ownership units, should be addressed in this particular proposal. Commissioner Thomas referred to the natural canyon off of the Administrative /Professional area and stated.that the use of it as an open space corridor in the wetlands area should also be considered in the EIR. • -3- COMMISSONERSI February 5, 1981 MINUTES 9 City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that.he is concerned with the shortage of housing for the people who are employed in Newport Beach h. He stated that an alternative should be included in the EIR, that the.entire project be devoted to housing with a neighborhood.commercial shopping center. Motion X Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amend All Ayes X * X YX X X ment No. 81 -2..and to direct staff to prepare the necessary environmental documentation and to schedule.public hearings, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Request to -amend the conditions of approval of Item #2 Newport Place P -C Traffic Phasing Plan for inter- section improvements at MacArthur Boulevard and NEWPORT Campus Drive. PLACE P INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach and the Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach The discussion.opened in connection.with this item, and Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, explained to the Commission the background of this request. In response to a question posed by:Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Webb stated that the project should be completed approximately nine months after the contract'is awarded. Motion X Motion was made to allow Emkay Development and All Ayes X * X X X X Realty. Company to .contribute •$26,320 `to the Trans- portation and Circulation Fund in lieu of com- pleting improvements at this time.to the Campus Drive- MacArthur Boulevard intersection that are required under the traffic phasing ordinance, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Request to convert an existing duplex into a Item #3 two unit residential condominium complex. A variance to the Zoning Code is also requested in USE PERMIT that the subject property.contains 3,400 sq. ft. N0. 1969 of land area where the Code requires 5,000 sq. • ft: of land area in order to convert residential AND property into condominium uses. February 5, 1981 1- 91 City of Newport Beach AND Request to create one (1) parcel residential condominium purposes presently exists so as to allow of an existing duplex into a two project. MINUTES INDEX of land for Item #4 where one lot the conversion RESUB- unit condominium DIVISION NO. 672 LOCATION: Lot 7, Block 2, Section:4, Balboa Island Tract, located at 107 and APPROVED 109 Grand Canal on the westerly CONDI- side of Grand Canal between Park TIONALLY Avenue and South Bayfront, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Arnold and Charlene Mills c/o James Parker, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and • Associates, Newport Beach Agenda Items Nos. 3 and 4 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning. Director Hewicker explained the chain of events which led to these requests. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. James Parker, representing the.applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Parker stated that the new Condominium Conversion Ordinance adopted by the City affected all properties in Newport Beach, except the Mills property. He stated that Mr. Mills had already obtained a condominium conversion permit from the City. He stated that Mr. Mills' misunder- standing has resulted in the loss of that permit. He stated that the Commission should consider the loss of money, energy and effort in their deliberations. He stated that the strict appli- cation of the new Condominium Conversion Ordinanc will deprive the applicant of a privilege which had previously been acquired and this will con- stitute a hardship. He stated that they are -5- February 5, 1981, MINUTES 9 City of Newport Beach INDEX 0 Motion Ayes Noes Absent seeking relief.from this forfeiture. He also stated that these requests will present no detri- ment to the neighborhood or the City, as the same uses will be applied to this property. He added that they are willing to comply with the current building standards. Im response to a question posed.by Mr. Parker, Mr. Don Webb; Assistant City Engineer, explained why an encroachment permit may have to be obtaine Commissioner Beek stated that it was the applican who failed to.record the map in time. He stated that the.City enacted a new Condominium Conversio Ordinance in order to prevent requests of.this nature. Commissioner Allen referred to Exhibit "B" of the staff report, findings and conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1969 and asked legal counsel if eFinding,No.3 can be deleted. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the finding that the project is cons %istent with the adopted goals and.policies of the.General Plan, need not be made in this case. Commissioner Thomas asked Commissioner Allen to explain. her thoughts. on why these requests should be considered for•appromal. Commissioner Allen stated.that this is a "Catch 22" situation which causes an.exceptional and unus -ual circumstance. She stated that these requests will not be settin a precedent. Commissioner Balalis concurred and stated that he is quite familiar with the delays that can be encountered when filing a map. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1969 with the findings and conditions of.Exhibit "B" of the staff report, deleting.Finding No. 3, Which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: USE PERMIT NO. 1969 The project complies with all applicable standard plans and specifications, adopted City and State Building Codes, and zoning • 11111111 -6- COMMISSIONERS1 February 5, 1981 MINUTES X 1 M Beach INDEX requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval, except as noted in Finding No. 2. That a variance to the Zoning Code is neces- sary in that:the Zoning. Code has been amended to require a larger lot area for a condominiu conversion project than was required when thi proposal was first approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the building as a condominium shall 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 in jurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City in that there —will be an insignificant • effect on the rental housing supply in the City. 4. There are no residents in the existing duplex who are fixed income elderly tenants or . handicapped. 5. That the-existing tenants whose income is. below 120% of the County's Median.Income shall be permitted to remain as renters for aPeriod of one year after approval.to convert to a condominium use is granted. 6. That the applicant has invested time.and mone in reliance on approval. of a resubdivisi.on that had inadvertently been permitted to ex- pire, and to deny this request would impose a hardship on the applicant. 7. That the granting of this request is necessar for the preservation and enjoyment of propert rights which were granted the applicant but. not exercised prior to the amendment of the Zoning Code. -7- February 5, 1981 z 12wt MINUTES RW CALL I III J i l - - - -1 INDEX Motion A N Absent 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 fourth on -site parking space re- quired by the Coastal Commission be provided. 3 -. That all Conditions of Resubdivision No. 672 shall be fulfilled. 4. That evidence be submitted to the Planning . Director indicating that.any existing tenants whose income is below 120% of the County Median Income will be permitted to remain as renters for period of one year after this approval is granted. Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 672 X Y X Y with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "B" X of the s.taff'report, which MOTION CARRIED as * follows: RESUBDiVI'SION NO. 672 FINDINGS: 1. That the.building to be converted, on the date of conversion, will he in basic com- pliance with the current Building Code. 2. That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium, except those t.enants'earning less than 120% of the County's Median.In- come, will be given one hundred and twenty days' notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due.to the proposed conversion. Those tenants earning less than 120% of the County's Median Income.shall. be p.ermitted.to remain as renters for.a.period of one year as provided for in Section 20.73.035 (A)3. of the Municipal Code. 3. That each of the tenants of the proposed con- dominium will be given notice of an exclusive • right to contract for the purchase of their respective units upon the same terms and con- -8- 0 COMMISSIONERS 31 a` � WD 1311 y3 February 5, 1981 M Beach ditions that such units will be initially offered to the general public or terms more favorable to the tenant. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinance and the Public Works Department. MINUTES 3. That an encroachment permit be obtained for any wall in the Grand Canal public.right-�of- way. Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro- posed 18,104 sq. ft. t office building. LOCATION :. A portion of Lot 78, and a portion of Lot 79, Tract No. 706, located at 3500 -3510 Irvine Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue, between Bristol Street and Orchard Drive, southerly of the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: C -1 -H and A -P -H APPLICANT: Richard H. Dodd and Associates, Newport Beach, OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach Chairman Haidinger asked staff if the ICU of 8748 on Bristol Street and Irvine.Avenue, in- cludes the addition of the Corona del Mar Freeway Planning Director Hewicker stated that the ICU does not include the addition of the Corona del Mar .Freeway. Mr; Don Webb, Assistant City Engine stated that this calculation is for Bristol Stree South; with the proposed improvements. Chairman Haidinger stated that he is also concerned with Bristol Street North. �I�IIIII -9 INDEX I Continued to Fahrii- ry ig, , February 5, 1981 MINUTES s I N1 Citv of Newport Beach Mr. Webb stated that the peak hour calculations were performed in the evening for the southerly portion of Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue. He stated that these calculations do not include Bristol Stree.t North. Chairman Haidinger stated that the morning peak hours are a problem on these streets and need to be considered. Plannin Director Hewicker stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that the P.M. peak hours be analyzed.. Commissioner Balalis asked if this is the same logic us.ed in the calculations for General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3. Mr. Webb stated-that the analysis utilized .in.General Plan amendments are also evening peak hours. Chairman Haidinger suggested that staff consider the Commission's concerns when preparing.General P1an:Amendment No._ 80 -3. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr: Webb stated that the intersection . improvements at Bristol Street North and Campus Drive do- take into consideration the.addition of the:,right turn lane and obtaining the right -of -w from the- County Board of Supervisors. 0 The public he:artng opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bill Otey, architect for Richard Dodd and Associates° representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Otey clarified that he does not represent any of the developers who are required to make the improvements under discussion: He stated that they are willing to concur with the staff re- commendation that the traffic study be approved with or without the condition of-the circulation system improvement. However, he stated that they are requesting approval of the traffic study without the condition imposed. He stated that the size of the project and the traffic which will be generated is insignificant compared to the other committed projects which will impact the intersection. Mr. Otey staged that as an additional condition for the development, his client will be granting 2= INDEX February 5, 1981, MINUTES J a 1 m Ir � City of Newport Beach mm Ir ,1.104 to the City of Newport Beach,.a 20 foot strip of land for the ultimate purpose of widening Irvine Avenue on the east side. He stated.that.this constitutes a significant contribution, along with making the improvements for the widening of Irvine Avenue as well. He requested that this project not be conditioned upon the obligations of other developers, over whom they have no control. Mr. Otey added that currently, hi.s_ client has the option of developing the parcels with two buildin without needing approval of a traffic study. How ever,.he stated that his client is.desirous of constructing a single building on the two parcels In respons.e to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis,.Mr. Webb explained the nature of the improvements for the ultimate widening of Irvine Avenue. Commissi -oner Balalis stated that if.the developers are not required to make these im- provements, then perhaps they should be required • to donate "X" number of dollars td ensure that the improvements will be made. Mr. Webb stated that thi.s..ca.n be required as a. condition of the building permit. Commissioner Bala °li.s stated that this would be a positive benefit to.all parties concerned. Commissioner.Allen asked if Condition of Approval No. 1, for improvements to the circulation system to•be.completed prior to occupancy, can be waived under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this condition could be waived in this case.. Planning Director Hewicker stated'that in this particular case, this condition was added only because of the Commission's practice in the past wi.th respect.to tying building occupancy to circulation system improvements for the area. In.respon -s.e to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant could de.velop two buildings on the parcels. for a total of approximately 22,000 sq. ft., whereas the applicant is proposing to develop only one.building on the 2 parcels of • approximately 18,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Balali -11- COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1981 MINUTES < n 4 m 09 W City of Newport Beach FW CALL INDEX stated that the development of one building on two lots, has a.more positive.aspect than the development of two buildings.on two lots. Motion X Motion was made to.approve the Traffic Study with the findings of Exhibit "A" of the staff report, deleting Condition No. 1, and adding a new Condition No. 1 as follows: 1) That "X" number of dollars in cash, as calculated by the City Traffic Department, be contributed to a fund, plus the dedication, to do the improvements to Irvine Avenue across their frontage. Substitutc Substitute.motion was made to continue this item Motion X until a revised traffic analysis can be made that Ayes X X X recognizes that the morning hours are the problem .Noes :X X at Bristol Street South and Irvine Avenue, which Absent * MOTION CARRIED. .Mr. Webb stated that: this action will require that a new traffic count be conducted at the intersection, to be funded either.by the applican • of the City. Mr. Otey stated that.they would not be agreeable in funding another traffic study. Motion Motion was made to continue this item to March 19, 1981, "to allow.more. time to obtain the accura information from either the applicant or from the staff in cooperation with the applicant. Commissioner Allen stated that a denial of the traffic study may result in the construction of a development that is not desirable. Commissione Thomas stated that the current traffic study is. not necessarily inadequate, but that the infor- mation therein is inaccurate. He stated that the item should be continued until the accurate in- formation is obtained. Commissioner Balalis stated that the applicant has paid for and conducted the traffic study, which was required and directed by the City Traffic Engineer.. He stated that now there are certain additional traffic counts being requested He stated that the City should take the initiat.iv .to provide these additional traffic counts, inas- much as: the applicant has already complied with • the City Traffic Engineer's criteria. -12- Amendment • Acceptance .All Ayes 11 �MISSIONERSI February 5, 1981 o xl* 0 W &D D w City of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Otey stated that.the traffic report was pre- pared under the same guidelines as all other traffic reports have been prepared. He stated that it would be unfair to single out this one traffic study, to find fault with the City's own criteria. He also stated that they would be withdrawing this item, if the Commission did not vote upon it, or if they were required to do another traffic study. Amendment was made to Commissioner Beek's motion that-this item be continued to the meeting of February 19, 1981, in order to obtain the re- quested information from either the applicant, or from the staff in cooperation with the applicant. Commissioner Balalis.asked Mr. Webb if this in- formation could be obtained in two weeks. Mr. Webb stated that an ICU count can be'conducted for the morning hours at this intersection with no problem. He stated that the difficulty will be in readj:ustments for the committed development! which were analyzed in the evening peak hours. Hi stated that he can report back to the Commission in two weeks, as to when this information can be. made available. Commissioner Beek suggested that Mr. Webb report back to the Commission with the information as to whether the ICU is higher or lower at the A.M. or the P.M. hours at these intersections. Mr. Webb stated that this information can be obtained in two weeks. Chairman Haidinger concurred. Commissioner Beek accepted the amendment to his motion by Commissioner Balalis. Amended motion was now voted on, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED. * * * Request to permit the construction of a 17,000 sq. ft. of additional office space with associ- ated parking, landscaping, and other facilities in conjunction therewith. Said application also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 63 -27, (Resubdivision No. 458), located -13- INDEX fg F"1 1 COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1981 MINUTES M INDEX at 4101 MacArthur Boulevard on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bowsprit. Drive, in the Newport Place Planning Community ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Far West Savings and Loan Associatio , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Robert Borders, the architect repre- senting Far West Savings,. appeared before the Commission. Mr. Borders requested approval of the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No. 2. He stated that Mr. Bill Darnell, who prepared the traffic report, was also present at tonight's meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have, In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordin -. ator, stated that the 8,740 square feet would be subject to further traffic phasing plans, which could only be developed on this site or the Daon site. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the 17,000 square feet of additional office space has already been approved as part of the Planned Community. Commissioner Thomas stated that by breaking down the traffic phasing plans in smaller increments, the chances are better that the impact will be under the one percent criteria. Planning . Director Hewicker stated that this may be true. in some cases, but does not apply in this parti- cular case. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidin.ger, Mr. Talarico.stated that all of the traffic phasing.plans for vested projects utilize a two percent analysis, as was directed by the City Council for the test of reasonableness. • 11111111 -14- 1nlft 1] LY COMMISSIONERS1 February 5, 1981 . MINUTES z t Beach Motion ' Motion was made to approve the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No. 2 with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ".of the staff report: Commissioner Allen asked if the 8,740 square feet Mr. Burnham asked Commissioner Allen if her inten is to condition this upo.n an agreement.between the City and the applicant. Commissioner Allen concurred. Mr. Bill. Darnell, who prepared the traffic report stated that the applicant agrees to not oppose any future Planned Community text amendments which would resolve these concerns. He stated that the City can then initiate the amendment to the P -C text. Mr. Burnham concurred with this course of action. -15- 0 INDEX can be.deleted in any way. Planning Director Hewicker stated that it would take.an amendment to the Planned Community to delete this. Ayes X X X Motion.by Commissioner Cokas was now voted on, Noes X Y X which MOTION FAILED. Absent Mr. Borders stated that they do not plan.on:any structural modifications for future expansion of the site. He stated that they would be willing t accept a condition of approval, that there would be no additions made to the property. Planning Director Hewicker asked.Mr.. Burnham, legal counsel, if a condition of this nature woul apply -to any future owner of the property. Mr. • Burnham stated that this-condition would apply, until it is challenged. Motion X Motion.was.made for approval of this item with the findings and conditions and Exhibit "A" of the staff report, and the additional condition, that no :further development on the site, beyond that which exists and 17,000 square feet shall occur. Mr. Burnham asked Commissioner Allen if her inten is to condition this upo.n an agreement.between the City and the applicant. Commissioner Allen concurred. Mr. Bill. Darnell, who prepared the traffic report stated that the applicant agrees to not oppose any future Planned Community text amendments which would resolve these concerns. He stated that the City can then initiate the amendment to the P -C text. Mr. Burnham concurred with this course of action. -15- 0 INDEX All Ayes r1 L J 11 XI X February 5, 1981 �In Beach Motion for approval by Commissioner Allen, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED as follows: Environmental Document: FINDINGS: MINUTES 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. That based upon the information contained in the environmental document, the proposed pro - ject will not have a significant envi.ronmenta -impact, the project subject to the conditions listed below incorporates sufficient miti- gation measures so that any presently anti- cipated negative environmental effects of the project would be eliminated. Traffic Phasing Plan: FINDINGS: That environmental documentation on this pro- posed project has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K -3 and that its contents have been considered in decisions on this project. 2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned. Community Development Plan for Newport Place. 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacit of affected intersections. 4. That the applicant has taken into considerati in the preparation of his plan characteristic in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto.less impact arterial.s or through inter- sections in the least congested direction. -16- INDEX COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1981 MINUTES w y y City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That occupancy of the proposed 17,000 sq. ft. shall not occur prior to 1982. 2. That a maximum of 17,000 sq. ft.. of develop - ment.be.permitted on this site by this approv 1 and that any additional be subject to further Phasing Plan Amendments. 3. The following disclosure statement of the Ci.ty of Newport Beach's policy regarding the ^Orange County Airport shall be "included in all leases.or sub- leases for space in the .project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and • assigns acknowledge that: a) The..Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is availab e, a complete phase ou -t of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport: c) The.City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County Airport; c) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet iar service at the Orange County Airport. 4. All development shall be.done in accordance with.Ci'ty Policies K -6 and K -7. 5. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for • project lavatories and other water -using facilities. -17- r 1 U February 5, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX 6. The final design of the project shall provid for the sorting of recyclable material from solid waste. 7. The applicants shall provide for weekly vaccum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives.. 8. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a li.censed landscape architect which evaluates the existing landscape and only proposed changes thereto. 9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and.Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 10. Tha landscape plan shall include a maintenan program which controls the use of fertilizer and. pesticides: 11. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasi! on the use of drought - resistant native vege- tation and be irrigated via ,a system designee to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 12. The landscape plan of the existing Far West Savings and Loan Buildings shall be reviewed by a.licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the measures ex- pressed above to the maximum extent practical that can maintain the character of the existing landscape program. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this. review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 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 shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impact from silt, debris, and other water pollutant -18- �x m 3 Xt February 5, 1981 11 Beach MINUTES 15. The grad.ing permit shall.include if required a description. of haul routes, access points . to the site and a watering and sweeping program.designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. 16. An erosion- and.dust control plan, if re- quired, shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 17. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be submitted to'the California Regional Water Quality Control. Board - Santa Ana Region. 18. The project shall be so designed to eliminat light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. 19, That no .further development nhall occur on the.site.beyond.that which exists and the approved 17,000 sq. ft. of additional office space. Request to permit a drive -up teller facility in conjunction with the Far West Savings and Loan Office Building expansion,located in the Newport Place Planned Community. A modification to the Newport Place Development Plan is also requested so as to reduce.tne on- -site parking requirement from one parking space per 225 sq. ft. to one parking space per 250 sq..ft. of "Net Floor Area" and the use of compact car parking spaces in conjunction.with the proposed expansion. LOCATION.: Parcel l of Parcel.Map.6327, (Re- subdivision.:No. 458), located at 4101 MacArthur Boulevard on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bowsprit Drive, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Far West Savings and Loan Association Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant 40 -19- INDEX AND MODIFI- Continued To Febru- ary 19, 1981 -j d x 38I�F February 5, 1981 • - # : - . 21_ MINUTES INDEX Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 7, Use Permit No. 1975, which included a request for a.modification, has requested that this item be withdrawn. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the:modification request could.be handled by the.Modifications Committee. Chairman Haiding stated that the modification request for a change in the parking standards should be considered by the Planning. Commission. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the staff be directed to send the modification request directly to the Planning Commission for determination. Mr. Robert Borders, the architect representing Far West.Savings and Loan., appeared.before the Commission and stated that they would be agree - able to a two week continuance on the modifica- tion request.. Motion J1JJJJJJJMotion was made to continue Item No. 7, the . All Ayes X * X X X X modification request for a change in the parking • standards,, to the meeting of February 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. a The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. * * * Agenda Item No. 9 was heard at this time, as Agenda Item Nos. '8 and 10 were heard together, in that they pertain to adjacent properties. * * * Request to waive a portion of the required park- Item #9 ing spaces in conjunction with the proposed additions and remodel of an existing single VARIANCE family dwelling so as to allow only two on -site NO. 1083 parking spaces where. three parking spaces are required by Code. This application also requests APPROVED a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a second story bay window to encroach 1.5 feet ± CONDI- into o the required 4 foot front setback. 11111111 20 w N w 7 February 5, 1981 z MINUTES RW CALL I I I I I I I I (INDEX LOCATION: Lot 241 and a portion of Lot 240, Tract No. 907, located at 133 Via Undine on the.westerly side of Via Undine, between Via Lido Nord and Via Lido Soud, on Lido Isle. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Herrick Hanson, Newport Beach OWNER: Martin J. Meltzner, Los Angeles The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Herrick Hanson, the applicant, ap- peared before the Commis.sion. He stated.that they are attempting.to remodel an existing one- story house. He stated that the third parking space requirement would necessitate eliminating a portion of the kitchen or the patio on the site He requested that they be.r-elieved from the third parking space requirement and be g.ranted a modi- fication for the minor encroachment of the bay window into the required front yard. Commissioner Allen asked. Mr. Hanson if the Lido .Isle Commun'i'ty Association's Architectural Com- mittee has approved this request. Mr. Hanson stated that he had obtained their approval and that the plans had been stamped accordingly. Mr. Lewis Gardinger, resident of 142 Via Undine, located directly across a portion of the property in question, and resident of Lido 'Isle for 25 years, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion to this request. Mr. Gardinger stated that he concurs with the recommendation of the staff report to deny the variance, which will not cause an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. He stated that there is adequate space on the property to provide the third parking space. Commissioner Beek stated that at the last meeting the Commission voted to delete the requirement for the third parking space from the Ordinance. He stated that he anticipated that the City • 11111111 -21- COMMISSIONERS1 February 5, 1981 MINUTES �d 51 City of New ort Beach L CALL INDEX Council would be adopting the Commi`ssion's recom- mendation within the next 30 days. He stated that the other.issue the Commission is considerin in this particular case, would be the bay window encroachment. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission is on.record as stating that two parking spaces for a single family dwelling is adequate. He stated that he felt it would be .a hardship for the applicant to wait the 30 days or so, until the City Council acts upon the Commission's re- commendation. Motion X Motion was made to approve Variance No: 1083.in Ayes XK X X X its entirety, subject to the findings and con - Noes X ditions of Exhibit "D" of the staff'report, with Absent * the addition condition, that approval of the Lido Isle Community Association'be verified be- fore the building permits are issued, which' MOTION CARRIED, as follows: • FINDINGS: 1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the existing structure in that the desired remodeling and additions cannot be accomplished if the third parking space is required. 2. That the granting of this application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the appli- cant inasmuch as the majority of existing residences in the vicinity provide only 2 on -site parking spaces. 3. That the granting of this application will not, under the circumstances of the parti- cular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons 'residing or working in the neighborhood or the property . of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. • -22- d February 5, 1981 Loll 4. The.proposed second floor encroachment is minor in nature. MINUTES 5. The proposed encroachment will not be detri- mental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con - formance.with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That the two car garage be kept free and clear for the parking of automobiles at all times. 3. That approval of the Lido Isle Community Associati.on for the bay window encroachment • into the front yard setback be verified befor the building permits are issued. Request to.amend the Planned Community Develop- ment Plan for Koll Center Newport so as-to allow the transfer of allowable square footage within the Planned Community:, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: ZONE: APPLICANT OWNER: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 76 -45, (Resubdivision No. 506), located at 4601 Von Karman Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Von Karman Avenue between Campus Drive and Birch Street in the Ko'll Center Planned Community. P -C Greenwich Plaza, A Partnership, Newport Beach Same as applicant I I I I I I I -23 INDEX Item #8 AMENDMENT N0. 558 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY ram February 5, 1981 y City of Newport Beach MINUTES RW CALL I III Jill I INDEX Request to change the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant complex with on -sale alcoholic beverages, located in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to include live entertainment and dancing in conjunction with the restaurant uses. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 129 -5, (Resubdivision No. 588) located at 4881 Birch Street on the north - westerly corner of Birch. Street and Von Karman Avenue in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P -C APPL.I.CANT: Thomas.A. White, Newport Beach OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance Company, Hartford, Connecticut Agenda Items Nos. 8 and 10 were heard concurrent- 40 ly due to their relationship. Item #1'0 USE PERMIT NO. 1855 AMENDED) Chairman Haidinger stated that'it is his under- standing that the parking at Houlihan's Restauran facility on adjoining property during the evening hours is a problem:: Planning Director Hewicker concurred and explained the problems that have been en coun red.. The public hearing opened on connection with Amendment No. 558, and Mr. Byron Pinker, repre- senting.the developer, appeared before the Com- mission. He stated that they are attempting to amend the Planned Community Development Plan in order to allow for an office building on the site. He stated that this use will mitigate the traffic problems that are being experienced by Houlihan's Restaurant facility. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Pinker stated that all projects in the Koll Center area are subject to reciprocal parking agreements. He then explained the curren parking conditions. 0 11111111 -24- COMMISSIONERS �m 40 0 7 N A f!! February 5, 1981, M MINUTES INDEX Motion All Ayes The public hearing opened in connection with Use Permit No. 1855 (Amended), and Mr. Ron Craig, representing Plaza de Cafes, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Craig stated that they are re- questing approval of the amended use permit. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Craig stated that there is cur- rently entertainment at the restaurant, but no dancing. Planning Director Hewi`cker stated that the entertainment phase of this use will require an amendment to the use permit. He stated that the applicant has been notified of th.is and has now filed for such an amendment. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1062 approving Amendment No: 558 and re- commending same to the City Council for adoption with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" of the staff report as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: AMENDMENT.. NO. 558 Environmental Document FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality .Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the.contents of Negative Declaration in the decisions on the Initial Study and have b.een'considered this project. That based.upon the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficent mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that.the project will..not result in significant environmental impacts. • 11111111 1 1 11 -25- February 5, 1981 ao Ra N 31 GtV Of Amendment No. 558 FINDINGS: MINUTES 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance.with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been considered in the decisions on this project. That based upon the information contained in the Initial'Study and Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitiga- tion measures to reduce potentially signifi- cant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. 4. That the proposed project is exempt from • Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That project traffic is less than 30% of either the P.M. Out Bound or Total P.M. Trips and therefore a Traffic Phasing Plan is not required. CONDITIONS: That the architectural character.and land- scape design established within the existing Koll Center Newport shall be maintained. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed land- scape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure; the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). -26- INDEX CD RVr I3 G February 5, 1981 71 MINUTES INDEX 10. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 11. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 12. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. • 11111111 -27- 3. The landscape plan shall be subject to.the review of the Parks, Beach and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 4. The landscape plan shall .include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizer and pesticides. 5. The l:andscape.plan shall. .place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vege- tation and:be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over- watering. 6. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire - retardant vegetation. 7. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by,the Building and Planning Departments. • 8. That -•a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage fac.ilitie5, to minimize any potential impact from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 9: The grading permit shall include, if require c, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping pro - gram designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 10. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 11. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 12. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. • 11111111 -27- 1MISSIONERS February 5, 1981 11511 City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 13. That grading shall be conducted in accordant with plans prepared.by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Per - manent reproducible copies of'the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 14. That the applicant provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas. 15. That final design of the project shall pro.- vide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 16. Prior to the occupancy of any building, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be • devel.oped and °approved by the Planning Department. 17. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion 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. 18. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in-receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 19. That the Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 20. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems • approved by the Fire Department. -28- February 5, 1981 MINUTES D w City of Newport Beach INDEX 21. That a "defensible space" concept shall be incorporated in the construction and design of the project and be reviewed and approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits. 22. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing system (i.e. security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments and approved by the Planning Department. 23. That the final.design -of o.n -site pedestrian circulation be reviewed and "ap'p'roved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 24. Prior to the issuance of %any..buildi:ng per mits.for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Publi • Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. Motion X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1855 All Ayes X * X X YX X (Amended) with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" of':the staff report as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: USE PERMIT NO. .1855 (AMENDED) FINDINGS: 1. That the existing restaurant use is con - sistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. The change in operational characteristics will not.create any significant environmental impacts. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems with the. • addition of dancing and live entertainment. -29- COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1981 MINUTES In City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX 4. That adequate off - street parking is being provided for the restaurant use. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1855 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace; morals, and comfort and general welfar of persons residing and working in the neigh- borhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. The development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan and floo plan. 2. That the proposed live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the building. • 3. That there shall be.no sound amplification used outside of the structure. 4. That a minimum of one parking space for each 38 sq. ft. of "Net Public Area" be maintained on the subject property. 5. That all other applicable conditions of approval previously required for Use Permit No. 1855 shall be.maintained. 6. That a cafe dance permit be obtained from the Ci -ty Manager's office. Chairman Haidinger asked staff if the Commission could expect to have a report back on Houlihan's Restaurant facility in the near future. Staff concurred. • I(� I I I I( -30- COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1981 MINUTES V at City of Newport Beach MI-CALL1111 III I INDEX Request to permit the construction of a two unit residential condominium and related garage spaces on property located in. the R -2 District. Item #11 USE PERMIT NO. 1972 AND AND Request to establish a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes where one Item-#12 lot and a portion of a second lot now exist. LOCATION: Lot 18 and a portion of Lot 20, RESUB- Block 640, Corona del Mar Tract, DIVISION located at 618 Marigold Avenue NO. 676 between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue, in Corona del Mar. APPROVED ZONE: R -2 CONDI- TIONALLY APPLICANT: Rolly Pulaski and Associates Newport Beach OWNER: Mr... Sid .Carp, — Anaheim • Agenda Items Nos. 11 and 12 were heard concur- rently due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with... these items and Mr. Bruce Arita, the architect, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Arita re- quested approval for the use permit-and resub- division applications. Motion K Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1972 Ayes X X XK with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" Noes X of the staff report as follows, which MOTION Absent * CARRIED: USE PERMIT NO. 1972 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a cond'omintum 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. -31- February 5, 1981 ,. HIS Gtv Of MINUTES INDEX Motion X Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 676 Ayes JJX IX X X with the findings and.conditions of. Exhibit "A" Noes. X of the staff report as follows, which MOTION Absent * CARRIED: RfSUBDdVI-SION NO. 676 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. -32- 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and polices of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential con - dominium development. 6. The approval of Use Permit No..1972 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of per - sons 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. CONDITIONS: . 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That two garage spaces shall 'be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all Conditions of Resubdivision No. 676 shall be fulfilled. Motion X Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 676 Ayes JJX IX X X with the findings and.conditions of. Exhibit "A" Noes. X of the staff report as follows, which MOTION Absent * CARRIED: RfSUBDdVI-SION NO. 676 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. -32- COMMISSIONERS K 0 : Ogg m icwg February 5, 1981 Of 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: MINUTES 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinance and the Public.Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with in- dividual sewer laterals and water services unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. • Request to permit the construction of a two unit resi.dential condominium.and related garage spaces on property located in the R -2 District.. Said application also requests a` modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the construc- tion of a carport in the front one -half of the lot. AND INDEX Item #13 USE PERMIT Nn 107A AND Item #14 RESUB- DIVISION Nn 977 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Request to create one parcel of land for resi -. dent.ial condominium purposes where one.lot presently exists. LOCATION: Lot 5, Block 336 of Corona del Mar Tract, located at 405 Jasmine Avenue on the northwesterly side of Jasmine Avenue, between Bayside Drive and First Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: William Dufresne, Irvine OWNERS: William Dufresne and Gerald Sandarg Irvine • ENGINEER: Noble Inc., Long Beach -33- INDEX Item #13 USE PERMIT Nn 107A AND Item #14 RESUB- DIVISION Nn 977 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY COMMISSONERS1 February 5, 1981 MINUTES K ox m Beach INDEX Agenda Items Nos. 13 and 14 were heard concur -: rently due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Bill Dufresne, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the use permit and resubdivision applications. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No,. 1974 All Ayes X * X X X X with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" of the staff report as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: USE - PERMIT NO. 1974 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units, has been de- signed 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.. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted .goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential con- dominium development. 6. That the establishment of a two car carport on the front one -half of the lot 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 in- jurious.to property and improvements in the • neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifi.ca- tion is consistent with the legislative in- =34- February 5, 1981 MINUTES 3 R H 13 City of Newport Beach INDEX tent of Title 20 of this Code. The proposed solid fence and gates adjacent to the carport .area will adequately screen the partially open parking spaces from Jasmine Avenue and adjoining residential property. 7. The approval of.Use Permit No..1974 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of per - sons 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one tandem.garage space -and one access- ible carport space shall be provided for.each dwelling unit. Said garage spaces shall have side.:walls, roofs and operating garage doors for access of automobiles. 3. That all Conditions of Resubdivision No. 677 shall be fulfilled. That the proposed development shall be de- signed and constructed within the 24 foot height limit as required by Section 20.02.030 A. of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That all provisions of the Uniform Building Code be met, including the required distance between the two stairways in each dwelling unit from the third floor to'the ground. 6.. That the proposed two car carport shall be located within 6 foot high solid wooden fence and gates as shown.on submitted plans. I I I I I I I I -35- February 5, 1981 9 n _ m GtV Of MINUTES Motion X t1IMotion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 677 All Ayes * X X X with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" of the staff report as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: RESUBDIVISION•NO. 677 FINDINGS: 1. That.the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances.of the City, all applicable genera or specific plans and the Planning.Commission Js satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. • 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each.dwelling unit be- served with in- dividual sewer laterals and water services unless otherwise approved by the.Public Works Department. * * * Appeal from the Interpretation of the Staff per- INDEX tem #15 PPROVED taining to the permitted height of proposed office buildings. LOCATION: Parcel No. 2, Parcel Map 3 -35, (R.esubdivision No. 211), located. at 2222 University Drive on the northerly side of University Drive, adjacent to the Orange Coast YMCA facility (Project Description: Back Bay Office Park), ZONE: A -P • APPLICANT: James F. Deane; Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -36- INDEX tem #15 PPROVED COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1481 MINUTES 9 City of Newport Beach WLCALLI III III INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is a difference of opinion betwee.n the staff as to what.has been approved by the City. He.stated that if this project were to be.developed strictl under the A -P District, it would clearly be per- mitted to build up to the .32 foot height limit and place the air conditioning equipment at the 32 foot height limit. He stated that.no impacts will be created as a result of placing the equip- ment at the 32 foot height limit, rather than at the 28 foot height limit. However, Planning. Director Hewicker stated that he has based h.is findings purely on the fact that the approved environmental document for this project indicated that it would be a 28 foot high building, with no air conditioning units shown on the roof of the building. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dick Hogan, representing the appli- cant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hogan • stated :. that the proposed air conditioning units will have no impact on the view, as they can not be seen.by adjacent property owners, but only at a distance. He requested that the interpretation be expanded to allow for the air conditioning uni to be placed on the roof. He stated that this will still conform to the height limit as it exists in the district. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hogan stated that they do not anticipa the air conditioning units to extend to the full height of 32 feet. Commissioner Beek expressed his confidence in the staff with regard to handling this item. Commissioner Thomas stated that the additional height of the air conditioning units can. mean a loss of additional hours:of- sunli -g:ht for the ad- jacent properties to the' rear of the site. Mr. Hogan stated that the units. are only 7 feet wide and should not have an impact of this nature. Commissioner Thomas also expressed his concern with' the architectural impact. 0 11111111 -37- K 0 _. CL H February 5, 1981 MINUTES of Newport Beach I fWL CALLI I I I Jill IINDEX Motion X Motion was made to overrule the interpretation All Ayes X * X X X Y of the staff and impose the condition, that the. air conditioning units be surrounded by screen walls, not to exceed thirty- two.feet above grade, be placed around the air — conditioning units and that the screen walls be compatible in materials and color to the parapet wall around the roof. * * * Request to amend the Planned Community Develop- ment Standards for the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, so as to consider a change in the proposed housing types and a change of various development standards for the residential areas of the Planned Community. AND Request to subdivide 66.5 ± acres into 93 numbered lots for detached single family resi- dential purpo.ses, 2 numbered lots for residential condominium purposes and 3 lettered lots for common landscape purposes. LOCATION: Tract Nos. 11042, 11044,,11045,. 11046, 11047, 11048, 10986 and a portion of Tract No. 11043, located on property bounded by Bison Avenue on the north, MacArthur Boulevard on the east, Ford Road on the south and Jamboree Road on the west. ZONE.: P -C APPLICANT: JM Peters and Company Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach Agenda Items .Nos. 16 and 17 were heard concur - rently due to their relationship. • I I I I I I I I -38 Item #16 AMENDMENT NO. 559 AND Item #17 TENTATIVE TR CST M P NO. 11377 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY February 5, 1981 MINUTES �x In w City of Newport Beach [WCO Planning Director Hewicker explained to the Com- mission the background information relating to these requests. He also stated that the staff is suggesting an additional change to the P -C text as it affects the parking for the residentia units, which the Commission has received a copy of same. In response to a question posed:by Commissioner Thomas, Planning Director Hewieker stated that the $914,000 park dedication fee was waived by the City. Council because the homeowner's associ ation would be burdened with the responsibility maintaining.: the public park. The Council did not feel jus -tified in requiring them to pay the. fee and maintain the park. Commissioner Allen asked why one -half of the park will be located in the over 65 CNEL area. Mr: Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the area outside of the 65 CNEL is in addition to the required park dedication and contains the • turkish rugging protected area. Commissioner Allen requested that Mr. Webb get back with her on this issue. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern regard- ing the possibility of a concrete block wall for the entire length of the project on MacArthur Boulevard. Planning Director Hewicker stated that a wall is being proposed at a substantial distance from the right -of -way on MacArthur Boulevard, which will include a landscaped earthern berm. He stated that in the event a wall is built, there are standard provisions re- quiring the developer to build the.wall a uni- form height and with uniform building.materials. He added that if the wall is a concern of the Commission, the.developer can be required to bring back a rendering of the wall prior to ob- taining building permits. Commissioner Thomas expressed his concerns with .the changes in the application, since the prior approval, particularly that of the grading plan. Commissioner Balalis stated that the present applicant, JM Peters and Company, Inc., may be • able to eliminate some of the concerns of the Commission. 99�lc o 3 � yyx N 7C 4, February 5, 1981 on t Beach MINUTES I IRL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX Commissioner Beek gard to the design the wall should be as to disperse the the noise. expressed his concern with re- of the wall. He stated that designed in such a manner so noise, rather than reflect The public hearing opened in connection with thes items and Mr. J.M,Peters, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Peters explained the changes that have been made to the Planned Com- munity and the minor changes to the road circula- tion pattern. He stated that the proposed wall will be substantially setback from MacArthur Boulevard and will include a landscaped berm which will provide better sound attenuation. He added that'.they.would have no objections in bring ing the wall design back for approval. Commissioner Allen stated that she is concerned with increasing the allowable fence heights and the placement of tennis courts on the lots along MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Peters stated that the_ • lots will be built by the individuals, but that the wall wil.l.be a part of the Master Plan and the responsibility of the developer. He stated that in considering the configurations and gradin of the lots, they felt as though an.eight foot wall would be appropriate for these lots. Commissioner'Allen suggested discretionary ap- proval be required when the landscape plan is completed to scrutinize the treatments of the chain link fences around.the tennis courts. Mr.. Peters stated that there.is a substantial grade change from MacArthur Boulevard to the lots in question. He stated that 'there'should.be no problem visually, when the landscaping is in place. Commissioner Allen:suggested that dense landscaping be utilized to hide the tennis courts and chain.link fencing. Chairman Haidinger stated that it would be appro- priate for the applicant to submit the wall analysis and landscaping plans to the Commission for their review and approval. • IIIIIIII -40- February 5, 1981 a� �a w 3W City of Newport Beach MINUTES I OWL CALL I III Jill I INDEX Commissioner Beek asked if the .conditions per- taining to the wall, also apply to the wall along Jamboree.Road and Bison Avenue. Mr. Peters stated that they would be agreeable to this. Mr. Brook Bentley, representing Big Canyon Country Club, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Bentley stated that they are concerned with the silt.problems, but that the applicant has worked well with the Country Club on this en- deavor. Mr. Peters referred to Condition No. 40 of the Tentative Tract Map, which requires a car wash facility, and requested that this condition be deleted for the same reasons itwas deleted from Big Canyon.Country Club. He stated.that con- si.dering the nature of the proposed development, he could not conceive of a car wash facility being utilized by the residents. He also stated that it would be a waste of property and an eye- sore. Mr. Peters stated that a $25,000 deposit has been made to help solve the silt problem. He stated that an erosion 'control plan is a "living" plan and they will continue to respond to the silt problems. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that silty water is presently being pumped over the top of the dike into the bay. Commissioner Beek stated that. this request prom- pose I s.to change the height of the buildings by at least a full story, which is a substantial change in the character of the development. Mr. Peters stated that the .additional height.is, needed'to achieve the architectural design of the townhouses. He stated that it will be com- patible with'the surrounding developments in the area. Motion Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 559 with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", including the suggested revision to the Planned Community District Regulations on parking, as proposed by the staff. I I I I I I -41- =r Ci W February 5, 1981 z Beach MINUTES Amendment Amendment was made to the motion, to approve an :.Ayes X average height of 28 feet and a maximum ridge Noes X X X height of 32 feet, rather than the .proposed Absent * average height of 32 feet and maximum ridge heigh of 37 feet, which AMENDMENT FAILED. All Ayes X * X YK X X Commissioner Allen's original motion for approval of Amendment No. 559, including the suggested revision to the Planned Community District Regu- lations on,.parking,'was .adopted. with Resolution NO. 1063 .;.:-and recommended to the City Council for adoption as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: AMENDMENT NO. 559 FINDINGS: 1. That based on the Initial Study, subsequent changes in the project will not require. revisions to the Certified Final EIR. 2, That based on the Initial Study, no new • significant environmental impacts not con -. sidered.in the Certified Final EIR were found. That based on the Initial Study, no substan- tial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be' undertaken. 4. That based on the Initial Study, no new information of substantial importance re- lated to the project has become available. CONDITION: 1. That the revision to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District Regulations, Section U, Attached Residential /Areas 1, .6; 7, and 8, (Page 10 of the P -C text) read as follows: "7. Parking. A minimum of 3.0 parking spaces per unit shall be required. One of the re- quired spaces may be permitted on the drive- way-of the residence, providing that said. • driveway has a minimum depth of twenty (20) -42- INDEX RESOLUTION NO. 1063 4MISSIONERS February 5, 1981 City of Newport Beach feet, measured from back of.curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. In addition to driveway parking,spaces, a minimum of 0..5 guest parking spaces shall be provided per unit. Said.guest parking spaces may be provided on- street or in bays, and their location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the City Traffic Engineer. MINUTES Motion ' Motion was made for approval of Tentative Tract No. 1.1377 with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with an additional condition that the landscape plan and wall plan be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. Amendment X X Amendment to the motion was made to delete the Ayes AX X X requirement for the car wash facility, which N X AMENDMENT FAILED with a tie vote. nt Commissioner Allen's original motion for approval Ayes X X H X of Tentative Tract No. 11377, with an additional Noes X condition that the landscape plan and wall plan Absent * be brought back to the Planning Commission for review, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED as follows.: n U TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11377 FINDINGS: 1. That the map.meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport'Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable.genera or specific plans, and the Planning Commis- sion is satisfied -with the plan of subdivisio 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. -43- INDEX COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1981 MINUTES N City of Newport Beach FWCALLI 111 111 INDEX 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That based on the Initial Study, subsequent changes in the project will not require revision to the Certified Final EIR. 6. That based on the Initial Study, no.new significant environmental impacts not con- sidered in the Certified Final EIR were found. 7. That based on the Initial Study, no substan- tial changes have occurred With respect to .the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. 8. That based on the Initial Study, no new information of substantial importance re- lated to the project has become available. • 9. That the design of the..subdivision or the proposed improvement will not substantially .and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 0. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not.likely to cause serious public health.problems. 1. 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. 2. That the discharge of water from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing req.u.ireme.nts prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Con - trol Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code). CONDITIONS: 1.. That all remaining conditions of approval of • Resubdivision No. 629, Tentative Tract Map -44- February 5, 1981 MINUTES w In F City of Newport Beach INDEX No. 10391 and the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing.Plan shall be conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. .11377 except as noted below in the following revised or new conditions. 2. That the design of private streets conform with the:City''s private street policy, except where otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The minimum street pavement .width shall be 32 feet. That the private street shown on the tentative map be re- designed to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles with the design to be approved by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. Cul -de -sacs shall have a minimum curve radius of 40 feet and planters within the street easements must have approval of the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. 3. That all vehicular access rights to Ford • Road, except for one access to Lansdownne Drive, one access to Southhampton Court, one access to Aeronutronic Division access road, and the two.existing drive.entrances to the lower Aeronutronic Facility be released and relinquished to the City. 4. That traffic signals be install.ed by the developer at Bison Avenue- Cel.tis Place/ Aeronutronic Ford Access Road and at Ford Road - Aeronutronic Division Access Road. That traffic signals be installed by the developer at the intersections of: (a) Bison Avenue- Carnelback /Point Royale Dri (b) Ford Road- Lansdownne Drive. The implementation of this requirement shall be.subject to verification by the City of traffic signal warrants. if the traffic signal warrants are not met within a five - year period after acceptance by the Council of the public improvements for the tract, • 11111111 -45- COMMISSIONERS] February 5, 1981 MINUTES K City of Newport Beach. INDEX the developer shall be relieved from this portion of the conditions of approval. Sep- arate sureties and agreements may be provided for this.work. The developer's obligation for these signals may be reduced to 50% if partial funding from the adjacent development is obtained. The subdivision agreement will provide for reimbursement to the developer if funding from other sources is received within five years of the completion and acceptance of the signal. 6. That easements for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utility and storm drain purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City. 7. That a public easement be provided on Point Royale Drive for public access to the public park and that an access drive'to be approved by the Public Works Department be constructed to the park site from Point Royale Drive. 8. That the existing 16 -inch water main in Bison Avenue be extended easterly from Camelback Street.to MacArthur Boulevard. 9. That if it is desired to construct non standard street improvements on either public or private streets, an agreement for non - standard improvements shall be executed with the City with wording•to be as approved by th City Attorney. That an easement for pedestrian:and bicycle purposes be dedicated to the public along MacArthur Boulevard from Ford Road northerly to the proposed park site just south of Bison Avenue. The width and configurations of the easement shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 1. That the landscape plan and wall plan for this project-be brought,-back to the Planning Commission for review. • 11111111 -46- K d �pdp77 ��D_ S February 5, 1981 of Newport Beach MINUTES Request to permit the construction of interior . alterations, second floor room additions and a third level deck to an existing single family dwelling which presently maintains a structural area in excess.of two times the buildable area of the site and provides less than..the required open space in the R -2 District. The proposed additions. will increase the total structural area and decrease the existing open space on the site. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested inasmuch as two off - street parking spaces are provided on -site where the Code re- quires three spaces. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 7, Block E of Seashore Colonty Tract, located at 6511 Seashore Drive on the south- easterly corner of Seashore Drive and Legonia Street in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 • II I I I I I (APPLICANT: Richard and Patricia Babineau, i Newport Beach OWNER: I Same as applicant. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Page 3 of the staff report and stated that the calculation for the net floor area of 2,229 sq. ft. was taken from the original building permit. He stated that the actual net floor area, excluding the garages and excluding the exterior walls of the structure, would be 1,81.4 sq. ft. He stated that the proposed addition of 174 sq. ft. would bring the new living area up.to 1,988 sq. ft. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Richard Babineau, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Babineau stated that this proposed addition °will make his home more 1'iviable. for his family for more liv- able for him physically. He stated that the rooms are unusally small in.size.. He stated that this proposal will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or the neighborhood. He also stated that he appreciated the assistance • that the staff had given him. -47- INDEX VARIANCE DENIED 4MISSIONERS February 5, 1981 MINUTES S 0 �A y City of Newport Beach INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that based on the square footage figures he had mentioned pre - viously., there would no longer be a need for the modification request to waive the third parking . space and therefore, Finding No. 4 could be deleted. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Planning Director Hewicker stated that there would.be 267 sq. ft. in the exterior walls. He stated that in taking a physical-measurement of the plan, 1,814 sq. ft. of net floor area was obtained. He stated that the net square footage figures are required-in determining the parking requirements, but not in determining the build- able area requirements. Commissioner Beek stated that it would appear that there is enough space in the house to enlarg the bathroom without increasing the floor area of the house and utilizing the open space. Motion X Motion was made for.approval of Variance No. 1084 A X with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" N X * X X X of the staff report, deleting Finding No. 4, Absent which MOTION FAILED. Motion X Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1084 on the Ayes X X Z X basis.o.f the following findings, which MOTION Noes X CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extra - ordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the applicatio ,. which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district which justifies the further increase of the building area of a structure which presently exceeds the maximum allowable building area of the parcel and which addition will substantially reduce the amount of available open space on th.e site. 2. That the granting of the application is not • necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the appli- -48- COMMISSIONERS) February 5, 1981. MINUTES pan � IWL CALL I III Jill I INDEX cant, since the larger than all. on similar -sized vicinity. existing structure is already of the other dwelling units property in the immediate 3. That the granting of such.a- pplication, will under the circumstances.of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property.of the applicant and will under.the circumstances of the particular case be materially detri- mental to the public welfare of injurious to property or improvements in`the neighborho d. * * * ELIDE Proposed Amendments to the Planning Commis.sion Item #19 Rules'of Procedure as they pertain to Planning Commission Study Sessions. AMENDMENTS • INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach TO RULES OF PRO - CEDURE Motion K Motion was made.to amend the Rules of Procedure; All Ayes. X *X X X X Section VI, Time of Meeting, Item B, as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: APPROVED B. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the Thursdays preceding the second and fourth Mondays of each month. These meetings shall commence at the hour of 7:30 p.m: except that the Chairman may call for said meetings to commence at the hour of 3:30 p.:m. when it is determined.that.the Commission's- workload warrants such earlier starting time. Proper notice of such meeting shall be given according to.the requirements of the applicable law. In addition to such regular meetings, the.Planni.ng..Commission shall.convene for the purpose of hearing reports from the Staff and reviewing, dis- cu:ssing and debating planning and zoning matters of interest to the City -at the hour of 4:30 p.m. on Thursdays preceding the second and fourth Mondays of each month when the Planning Commission Chairman makes the • determination that said Study.Session is war - ranted. No official action will be taken at a Study Session. ELIDE COMMISSIONERS February 5, 1981. MINUTES N City of Newport Beach WLCALLIIII III INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Local Coastal Proaram In response to a question posed by Commi.ssioner Thomas, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the proposal pending before the City Council is that The Irvine Company is suggesting.that:the entire:Mouth of Big Canyon be dedicated to a public agency. In exchange for the dedication, they are asking for credit for the park lands that would have been dedicated to the City. He stated that this would have to meet the criteria of the in -lieu Park Dedication Ordinance. In addition to the park credit, they are asking the City to initiate a zone change or an amendment to the Big Canyon Planned Community which would allow them to build dwelling units at the inter- section of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Thomas stated that his original • concern was that the dedication was a mitigation condition to allow for the sewer line. 'He stat that by granting the park credits, residential and recreational facilities will be lost in the future. Excused Absences Motion I X Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Balalis All Ayes X * X X X and Commissioner Cokas from the Planning Commissi meeting of February 19, 1991, which MOTION CARRIE * * * Neighborhood Service /Comme- rc.ial District lJ Commissioner Beek stated that a Neighborhood Service /Commercial District is becoming a crucia need throughout the City. Commissioner Allen suggested that other Cities be contacted for their input, in conjunction with the data on the Specific Area Plan for Corona del Mar. 50 COMMISSIONERS 9 n m 3 � 7C Vi February 5, 1981 W Beach MINUTES INDEX Motion X Motion was made to direct the staff to prepare All Ayes X * X X X X the definition of a Neighborhood Service/Commer- cial District, to be considered for adoption by the Planning Commission at a later date, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * There being no further business, the_Planning Commission adjourned at 11:15 p.m. * * * George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission • City of Newport Beach • 11111111 -51-