Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/1980COMMISSIONERS Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers = Time: 7:30 P.M. d b: C m Date: February 7, 1980 w g City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x Absent * STAFF MEMBERS James Hewicker, Planning Director William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Glenna Gipe, Secretary * * * Motion Ayes Abstain Aje n t Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent 0 inutes Written By: Glenna Gipe * * * x Motion was made to approve the minutes of the re- x x x xgular Planning Commission meeting of January 10, * 1980. * * * 111 jjj otion was made to approve the minutes of the re- x x x gular Planning Commission meeting of January 24, * 1980. * * * otion was made to remove from thelce.lendar x x x x xAgenda Item No. 1, Resubdivision No. 643, as per * the applicant's request. * * * otion was made to continue Agenda Item No. 4, Use x ]xl x xPermit No. 1924, to the regular Planning Commissio * eeting on March 6, 1980, so that staff has addit- ional time to review the revised plans of the ap- plicant. * * * equest to create two parcels of land for single amily residential development where a portion of ne lot now exists, and the acceptance of an En- ironmental Document. Item #1 RESUB- DT SION NO. 643 F. -f ' w � S n a) S5 0 a) m D V� 7 i 4wi M =M February 7, 1980 z t Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion Ayes Absent • 0 x OCATION: A portion of Lot 94, Tract No. 1701 REMOVED located at 501 and 5'25 E1 Paseo FROM THE Drive, on the northwesterly side of CALENDAR E1 Paseo Drive between Malabar Drive and Bayside Drive in Irvine Terrace. ONE: R -1 PPLICANT: Dr. Robert Hubert, Newport Beach WNER: Same as Applicant NGINEER: Robert Be,in, William Frost & Asso- ciates, Newport Beach Motion was made to withdraw this item from the x xcalendar, as per the applicant's request. equest to establish one building site and elimi- Item #2 ate interior lot lines where four lots now exist so as to permit commercial development on the RESUB- roperty. DIVISIO TION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 28, Block 220, Section A, Newport Beach, located APPROVED at 2000 West Balboa Boulevard; on CONDI- the northeasterly side of West TIONALLY Balboa Boulevard between 20th Street and 21st Street, adjacent to McFadden Square.' ONE: C -1 PPLICANT: Thirtieth Street Architects, New- port Beach WNER: Carl Ackerman, Fulldrton NGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., Hunting- ton Beach -2- �0 o 5 o ao CO a p WCD M•ion Ayes Absent 9 MINUTES February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that the use of the modular building is only to be during the construction stage of the permanent structure and that the modular building will be removed when the permanent structure is complete. In response to another question posed by Commis- sioner Thomas, Mr. Hewicker replied that by defi- nition a modular building is a relocatable build- ing, or building which can be moved from one site to another and that when a modular building is placed on the ground, the Building Department will require that it be put on.a permanent foundation, continuous footing, or that it be tied down. he Public Hearing was opened regarding this item nd John Lumts, 30th Street Architects, appeared efore the Planning Commission andstated that the wner'concurs with the conditions as indicated in he Staff Report. tion was made that the Planning Commission make e Findings as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the aff Report and approve Resubdivision No. 649, bject to the Conditions as ,indicated in Exhibit " of the Staff Report. equest to amend the conditions of! approval in onjunction with an approved Offsiie Parking greement. OCATION: Lot 3, Block X, Tract No. 323 (i.e., building site) located at 3331 and 3337 East Coast Highway, on the southerly side of East Coast Highway between Marguerite Avenue and Marigold Avenuein Corona del Mar; Lots 29 and 31 Block 239, Corona del Mar (i.e., offsite park- ing lot) located at;329 and 331 Marigold Avenue, on the northwest -. erly side of Marigol :d Avenue, in Corona del Mar. -3- INDEX Item #3 OFFSITE P RKING AGREEMENT APPROVED COMMISSIONERS K w W % CS m 7 h x N February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX ZONES: C -1 and R -1 PPLICANT: Julius.V. Evans OWNER: Same as Applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented brief ly regarding this item, stating thalt in 1977 the Planning Commission and the City Council permitted the 1200 sq. ft. extension of the commercial space next to the Coast Market on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, subject to the approval of an offsite parking agreement which would tie down formally the use of the two residentially -zoned lots behind the Coast Highway frontage. He com- mented that prior to that time, although the park- ing lot Was being used for the commercial busi- nesses, it was not formally tied to those commer- cial businesses by any mechanism that the City had • He added that this particular offsite parking agreement was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, subject to cer- tain findings and conditions. He added that the owner of the property then proceeded to secure his building permits and the construction was com- pleted, but that they never called for any final inspections, no occupancy permit was given and there were several conditions placed on the off - site parking area that were not fulfilled. He stated that this problem finally came to staff's attention and staff implemented procedures at- tempting to get conformance with the conditions of approval as given by the City and State Coastal Commission. He further stated that these condi- tions require.the restriping on the lot, the re- placement of the wheel stops, the construction of a concrete block wall between the parking lot and adjoining residence, the installation of the land- scaping and the posting of signs. He commented that just recently most of these conditions of approval have finally been taken calre of, but that there are still.some.items to be taken care of, such as parking lot lighting and striping. -4- COMMISSIONERS February 7, 1980 n = --A a o W a 0 T y City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I III] I INDEX He added that the Planning Commission has receiv- ed two items of .correspondence relating to this item, including a petition and letter from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce: stating their concern about the requirements imposed on the ap- plicant. He explained that in the event that the Planning Commission decides that they would.like to see the parking lot striped in a different fashion, the applicant will not only have to gain approval of the City Council, but will also have to go back to the Coastal Commission to get the conditions changed on their approval. He further explained that one of the difficulties in this area of Corona del Mar is the fact that there is a one =way alley 14' wide, and the space behind the travel services is being used for parking and as a result, the area set aside for loading is not available and as a consequence the trucks stop in the alley, which means that the 'cars exiting the parking lot can only turn in one direction, • taking them through the residential area. He ex- plained that the second problem isithat there are utility poles that may present a problem; however, the dimensions of the parking lot that has been approved meets the City standards. He stated that the former arrangement of the parkiing lot would permit a car going eastbound through the alley to pull off the alley into the parting lot. He explained that it became a problem when a truck coming along'.and.stopninp in the ali,l.ey to unload would pull behind the car parked in the stall. He expressed his feeling that the present arrangement would probably work better than .it has before. In response to a question posed by :Commissioner Allen, Mr.'Hewicker. replied that there are 11 stalls striped on the row next to the single - family dwelling where there should be 10 and as a result of having 11 stalls, each one of those ends up being a little more narrowtha,n they should be. In response to a question posed by'Commissioner Allen, Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, replied that the City standard drawings indicate that 35' • would be required for the spaces if they are -5- COMMISSIONERSI o C 8 a) N 3 February 7, 1980 Z t Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX staggered. He further commented that these fi- gures are based primarily on a standard size car which would fit into an 18' - 19' length. In response to a question posed by.Commi.ssioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that a setback from the alley would have been required; but that this was the layout as presented and approved in 1977, and at the present time a 5' setback would be re- quired on an alley 15' or less in width. In response.to.another question posed by Commis- sioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that there are two lots, that they are under one ownership and that the assessor has assessed then as one parcel The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Julius Evans, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated hisconcurrence with the conditions as indicated in the Staff Re- port. Mr. Evans then commented that Mr. Wells, the ten- ant and owner of Wells Market, objected to nut- ting the parking bumpers along the alley, block- ing off the elderly customers' exit into the al- ley. e further commented that the City:had required 0 parking spaces for the extra amount of build - ng and that they arranged the parking lot to ac- ommodate the City. He added that�the residents ext door do not want the cement block wall, hich they felt would block off all the air to heir homes. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Evans replied that the tenant and customers would prefer to leave the parking lot configuration as it has been for years. In response to a question posed by ',Commissioner Allen regarding the necessity of the bumpers, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City Council has adopted a resolution which requires that parking lots be improved with wheel stops to keep cars from en- w m 5 X w 0( February 7, 1980 City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill, I INDEX �J 0 roaching into the alley and to provide a mecha- ism to keep cars from rolling forward. n response to a second question pd.sed by Commis- ioner Allen, Mr. Hewicker expressed his feeling. hat with traffic crossing Marguerite Avenue, this lley is one of the prime access ways paralleling oast Highway and cars encroaching into the alley oul.d present a problem. ommissioner Balalis suggested removing the plant - r next to the alley at the end. Mr. Evans re- lied that he had removed it the previous day and eplaced it that day and that there is a telephone ole in the middle of that corner.' i ommissioner Balalis commented tha# the petition tates that there are several spacds eliminated ecause of the City's requirements, but that there re in reality no spaces eliminated. r. Evans expressed his feeling that there was ever a problem in the alley or street, as Mr. ells has always patrolled the area. d Wells, the applicant's tenant, appeared before he Planning Commission and suggested that the arking lot be left as is, as there were no pro - lems until the wheel stops were required. r. Hewicker stated that there is a change in ele- ation between the parking lot and the residen- ial, as the lots are higher lots to the west and here is not the horizontal space in which to aneuver as in other alleys. n response to a question posed by;Commissioner alalis, Mr. Webb replied. that the traffic en- ineer has been allowing a reduction of about 1' n stall length for each additional foot of width. atty Wells expressed her feeling jhat the loading one is not adequate to accommodate the large rucks and before the wheel' stops vO re:i:nstall.ed, ars could go around the truck. -7- COMMISSIONERS n = m o a,d x(D N X W February 7, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX 0 Commissioner Thomas suggested putting the stops on halfway down and not putting them near the loading area. Commissioner Balalis suggested recommending to the City Council that this particular parking lot not be required to meet all the requirements of offsite parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hewicker explained that the first dis- cretionary action is with the City and should their action be.different than the diagram, then it will have to go back before the Coastal Com- mission. Commis.sioner Balalis suggested that staff meet with the applicant and the tenant and put together a diagram that would work better. Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that the brick wall should be a requirement. r. Hewicker explained that it would be allowable o have a wall 4' high in solid masonry with 2' f open masonry construction. ommissioner Beek stated his understanding that he objection is to the inconvenience of this lay - ut with the planter getting in the way and with he wheel stops and that the number of parking paces are adequate if the inconvenience is re- oved. He then suggested taking out the wheel tops adjacent to the alley and the planter. Mr. Evans expressed his feeling that Commissioner Beek's suggestion would eliminate the problems. Motion x Motion was made.to authorize the applicant to remove all the wheel stops.adjacent to the alley. i Motion x Amendment to the ;Motion was made that the appli - cant be authorized to remove all the wheel stops adjacent to the alley through parking space number so � � w 3 w-� N N CD l February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES 0 Commissioner Haidinger expressed his concern re- garding the advisability of requiring a block . wall when the people who own the lot don't want a wall and the people next to the lot don't want a wall. Commissioner Haidinger suggested that the appli- cant be allowed to go without the wall now and that he be required to post a bond. Commissioner Beek suggested that the.applicant not be req.uired to post a bond and that the re- quirement for the wall be deleted. . Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that the requirement for the wall is a good one and the fact that the applicant has an option on the pro- perty at the present time gives the Planning Com- mission the opportunity to say that he may pur= chase that property; however, if another indivi- dual buys the property, there are good reasons why block walls are required adjacent to parking pots. He stated his preference that if the re- INDEX 12, leaving the wheel stops at parking space num- bers 14, 16, 18 and 20. Commissioner Beek accepted Commissioner Allen's Amendment to the Motion to be included as his Motion. Ayes x x Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Abstain x Absent * Commissioner Beek inquired regarding the cost of a bond, to which Mr. Hewicker replied that for a concrete block wall, the cost of a bond would be about $2,500.00. Motion x Motion was made that the wall be 4' of solid ma- sonry with 2' filigree or open brick above it to provide light and air. Mr. Evans stated that the homes have quite a few flowers that would be destroyed if :a block wall • were required. 0 Commissioner Haidinger expressed his concern re- garding the advisability of requiring a block . wall when the people who own the lot don't want a wall and the people next to the lot don't want a wall. Commissioner Haidinger suggested that the appli- cant be allowed to go without the wall now and that he be required to post a bond. Commissioner Beek suggested that the.applicant not be req.uired to post a bond and that the re- quirement for the wall be deleted. . Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that the requirement for the wall is a good one and the fact that the applicant has an option on the pro- perty at the present time gives the Planning Com- mission the opportunity to say that he may pur= chase that property; however, if another indivi- dual buys the property, there are good reasons why block walls are required adjacent to parking pots. He stated his preference that if the re- INDEX COMMISSIONERS =r x W February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX quirement is given now, there should be some mech a.nism to impose it at the time of transfer of the property. i Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the bond requirement is preferential to the deed restriction and the premium would not be ex- cessive. Commissioner Haidinger suggested that Mr. Evans agree to build the wall at the time the title of the adjacent property is transferred, and without bond. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that the applicant agree to build the wall at the time the title of the adjacent property is transferred, and that a bond not be required. Mr. Burnham explained that action on the condition • can be waived at the present time but enforced at a later date and it can be included in the agree- ment that.a waiver at any one time does not con- stitute a waiver forever. Ayes Noes Absent E x Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that if intensification of use along Pacific Coast Highway comes about, there will be a need for more parking and this area.may be used for parking, which he did not feel was a compatible use with the area, and said wall would be a necessary barrier. x1 flSuRRIEDute Motion was then voted on, which MOTION Request to permit the temporary use of a modular building for a California Savings & Loan branch facility in the P -C District. LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2370 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, wester- ly of MacArthur Boulevard. -10- Item #4 USE PER - KrT_1TU- CONTINUED I TEA FF 6, 1980 COMMISSIONERS o p3 C x m D February 7, 1980. Of Beach MINUTES ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: California Federal.Savings & Loan, Los Angeles OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach INDEX Motion x Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x XK gular Planning Commission meeting on March 6, 1980 Absent * so that staff has additional time to review the revised plans of the applicant. Request to .remodel and construct first and second Item #5 floor additions on the existing Lido Isle Commun- ity Association..building in the R -1 District, and USE PER - the acceptance of an Environmental Document. MIT NO. 1925 • LOCATION: Lots 20 through 25, Tract No. 907 and Lot C of Resolution No. 1781 APPROVED (Via San Remo street -end) located CONDI- at 701 Via Lido Soud, on the TI N LLY southerly side of Via Lido Soud, between Via Ravenna -and Via Undine on Lido Isle. NE: ail APPLICANT Lido Isle Community Association, Newport Beach OWNER: Lido Isle Community Association and the City of Newport Beach (i.e., Via San Remo street -end), Newport Beach Commissioner Beek stated his preference that these parcels be combined. James Hewicker, Planning Director,commented that this would be a difficulty in that City ownership would be mixed with ownership of the Lido Isle •Community Association and the association has -11- COMMISSIONERS I MINUTES February 7, 1980 � m 3 5 W" W �' City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I 117DEX leased the City property, but that it would be very difficult for the City to transfer ownership. Commissioner Beek inquired whether zthe Planning Commission could require that the parcels be com- bined upon permitting the encroachment, to. which Mr. Hewicker replied that this would be possible but that he did not feel the Lido Isle Community Association would concur with this. The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Eric Nimble, President of the.Lido Isle Com- munity Association, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that they would like to pro- ceed with these changes which would add approxi- mately 1725 ft. of upstairs rooms which would en- hance the utilization of the property and add 830 ft. of storage area which .would assist in storing at a central location. He further stated that they would like to proceed with the recom- • mendation of staff as indicated in Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report. 0 In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Nimble responded that the building is used for a women's club, a yacht club, dances, regattas, boy scouts, exercise nrauIp and bridge club. -He added that they have had problems when one group uses the facilities and there is no privacy for another group. Commissioner Hai:dinger expressed his concern re- garding the parking as to the number of times out - siders use the facilities for events. r. Nimble replied that the rules for using the lubhouse specifically prohibits outsiders from sing their facilities. n response to a question posed by.Commissioner llen, Mr. Nimble replied that thehouses facing he two streets are street- to- stregt houses, so hat those people have an opportunity to park in. ront of their homes and there is additional park - ng available in back of the homes. -12- COMMISSIONERS �m �5oaom x�m N Cl)F fN MINUTES February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Haidi.nger posed a question regarding restriction of use of the clubhouse by outsiders, to which Mr. Nimble replied that they would be comfortable with that with the exception of the. one outside event that they permitlof the Newport Harbor High School P.T.A., which has used the clubhouse traditionally for their yearly honorary service award luncheon. Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that he would also feel comfortable.with this type of restriction. In response to a question posed by!Commissioner Beek regarding combining the lots into one parcel, Mr. Nimble replied that they would have a problem with that because they saw nothing to be accom- plished by it, except a delay and that there would be a. conflict due to the City ownership of one lot • Commissioner Balalis inquired whether this could be accomplished with a parcel map without delaying construction, to which Mr. Hewicker replied that there would be a cost of about $1,000 to $2,000 to the applicant in the preparation and recorda- tion of a parcel.map, but that.the Planning Com- mission could direct that staff js�ue the build- ing permit but.withhold occupancy ntil such It8me as the parcel map was recorde,. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hewicker replied that.in this parti- cular case there is a mix of property owned by the association with a street -end owned by the City, and the parcel map would necessarily have to ex- clude the street -end. Mr. Hewicker explained that several months back representatives from the Lido Isle Community As- sociation came to the City staff and talked to the City Attorney and the question of ownership of the lots.and the combinations of parcels together was discussed. I I I I He commented that one of the suggestions that came • from the City Attorney's office was that the Plan- -13- COMMISSIONERS K r,d v ao ®� � x w February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III III I I I INDEX ning Commission could make a finding that the pro- perty as owned by the association constituted a multiple ownership and the reouiremjent could be waived. M.A. Richley, Jr., Lido Isle, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented that Lido Isle is entirely within Tract No. 907, expressing his feeling that to put a parcel map on it does not . accomplish anything. He added that the members of the Lido Isle Community Association are very restrictive as to the use of the clubhouse by. out- siders.. Herbert Riley, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission and explained that the over- hang goes out further than the encroachment shown on the plan and that the encroachment for the . stairway goes out 2 feet. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hewicker replied that this is public property in that it is owned by the City, but that it is leased to the association. In response to a second question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hewicker replied that the lease continues to the year 2000. By way of answer to a third question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr'. Hewicker replied that.there is nothing inconsistent being done in terms of what the City.Council hasialready done regarding leasing the property. Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report and approve Use Permit No. 1925, sub= ject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report, with the added condition that no more than one event annually be. conducted under the sponsorship of an organization',or individual who is not a member of the Lido Islie Community Association. Motion .x mendment to the Motion was made that there be a requirement of the filing of a parcel map follow =. ing the issuance of the building permit to make • the lots into one parcel. -14- COMMISSIONERS I MINUTES February 7, 1980 W' City of Newport Beach y ROLL CALL I I I I I INDEX Mr. Richley again appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his feeling that nothing would be accomplished by the filing of a parcel map, other than an incurred additional expense. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not support the amendment to the motion because he did not see the purpose in spending the money, time and effort to combine lots with only one building on it. Ayes 11 J*JxJJxJAmendment to the Motion was then voted on, which Noes MOTION FAILED. Absent In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that the encroaching of the eaves on City.property, though the walls and foundation did not encroachion. said property, would still require an encroachment permit from the City Council. Afs x x Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent * * * 0 Request to construct a two -story restaurant faci- lity with on -salve alcoholic bevera es in the M -1 Item #6 District and the acceptance of an Invironmental USE PER - Document. The proposal also includes the request f1 Nom- to accept an offsite parking agreement for a por- 1T216— tion of the required'offstreet parking spaces. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested, DENIED since a portion of the subject offstreet parking spaces are tandem spaces (where the.Ordinance re- quires that all parking spaces shall be access - ible). Furthermore, a portion of the offsite parking spaces encroach 4 feet or 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yards adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lot Nos. 1 and 2, Block 425, Lan- caster's Addition td Newport Beach, located at 2800 Lafayette Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of La- fayette Avenue and 28th Street in Cannery Village. NE: M -1 -15- 9M > N F N 7 February 7, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX APPLICANT: Tonti - Walker Investors, Irvine OWNER: Nick Delaney, Costa;Mesa AND Request to establish one building site and eli- minate an interior lot line where two lots now exist so as to permit restaurant development on the property. LOCATION: Lot Nos. 1 and 2, Block 425, Lan - caster's Addition to Newport Beach, located at 2800 Lafayette Avenue,. on the northeasterly corner of La- fayette Avenue and 28th Street in Cannery Village. ZONE: M -1 • 1 11111 I ine sBeach Archi- tekton,I Newport (These items were heard concurrently, due to their relationship.) The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Joe Orloff, Applicant, appeared' before the Planning Commission to state his concurrence with the conditions as indicated in the :Staff Report. oug Bray, member of the United Fisherman's Orga- ization of Southern California and commercial isherman, appeared before the Planning Commission nd stated that the organization feels that under he Coastal Act of Chapter 8, Article 2, Section 0703, eliminating of any commercial facility oes not agree with the Coastal Act, as these fa- ilities have been in existence at'least 15 years. r. Orloff again appeared before thle Planning Commission and stated that they have an option that allows the slips to stay and that they would • also like to see the boat slips stay for the use of the commercial fishermen. -16- Item #7 RESUB- DIV —IS ION NO. 650 MIAMI COMMISSIONERS K 0d c o 07� MINUTES February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach INDEX Peter Tonti, Applicant, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and stated that they had decided that it was in the best interest of the restauran to allow the commercial boat slipsto stay and that they:would accept a condition stating such. He stated that they have a 35 yearjlease and as time and circumstances change, th.er:e may come a time in the future when it would no longer be practical. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that this is prime waterfront in the area in which they are most concerned with preserving their waterfront uses and what is being proposed is a non- water - front related project. Commissioner Thomas stated his agreement with Com- missioner Beek's concern. • Mr. Orloff again appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the project is within the allowed uses for the area and that they want the commercial boats to stay. illiam Clapet•, Archi- tekton, appeaired before the lanning.Commission and expressed his feeling that he marine: oriented industries cannot necessarily fford this kind of waterfront property and if a ishing company couldn't afford to.own property n the waterfront, then he did not.iunderstand how he Coastal Act,.could remedy this.: He also ex- ressed his feeling that people building and re- airing boats are polluting the bay. harles Stein, Real Estate Broker,-appeared before he Planning Commission and reminded them that thi is a single - purpose building as it presently xists and is primarily that of a warehouse for rovision and the present tenants in recognition f where their clientele are moving are more into the County near the Anaheim area. !He stated that ne of their major considerations in making this ecision was due to the fact that it was away from their clientele. He added that the building as • single- purpose warehouse building cannot exist in its present form. r -17- C'X (Do i fill 7�C fA February 7, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III III I I INDEX Motion JxJ 1111 I was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report and deny Use Permit No. 1926. In response to a comment made by Mr. Stein, Com= missioner Balalis explained that it is required in certain projects that an EIR be required, in which case the.City chooses the individual and the applicant pays the fees. He further explained that the report is first prepared „ then reviewed by staff, then various citizens, then the Planning Commission. He concluded by stating that the Planning Commission must then determine whether the solutions are acceptable. r. Tonti again appeared before thel Planning Commission and explained that it is a single - purpose building and that the use of that build - ing by its present tenant is now felt by the ten- ant to be no longer practical. He :added that the • building is of sub = standard condition and quality and will ultimately have to be removed and that there are very few businesses who could afford to put a building on that site of any quality that would be aesthetically pleasing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Local Coastal Planning Committee has taken the position that they do not want to become involved in making recommendations on individual projects and the Planning Commission in the past has referred it to the committee for a specific purpose with a' specific recommendation that they review it and make comments. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that the denial of this use permit and resubdivision ould be based on the general feeling that a estaurant is not an appropriate use in that loca- ion and that they are denying it on the basis of he findings in the Staff Report. r. Tonti expressed his feeling,thalt he would ppreciate feedback from the Local :Coastal Plan- ing Committee. 9" �� mm O Q]Q D J N JC 0 7 February 7, 1980 Z Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that the Local Coastal Planning Committee has already.give the Planning Commission a very clear indication o the direction they want to be taken., and that is that they want to see more waterfront dependent uses. ommissioner Balalis stated that.h.e would not sup - ort the Motion.because of his feel!'ing that water - ront locations are unique and are'for the use of any people and not just the Andividuals that own oats and that it had been his experience by fre- uenting the Cannery Restaurant-that a lot more eople have had the opportunity to .view the water - ront since it became a restaurant. Ayes x x K Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Noes K x Absent * * Motion was then made that the Planning Commission Motion x make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "B" of Fl�ues x x the Staff Report and deny Resubdivision No`. 650. Nss x Absent equest to consider proposed amendments to the and Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and pen Space Elements of the General Plan, and the cceptance of an Environmental Document. NITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that this is only the first step in the 'process for this particular General Plan Amendment and that the second step is a zone change and the third step is a use permit and resubd.ivision, so that there .are:•at. least three other discretionary actions that must be taken.by the City prior to the time that the construction contemplated by this request would actually.occur. The Public Hearing continued regarding this item and Chuck Woodland, representing the Chevron Oil Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and explained that the purpose of their proposal is to completely reconstruct their service station -19- Item. #8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80 -1 CONTINUED TO FEB- RUARY 21, 1980 K 0 5 W w D N fN 7 C February 7, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI 111 1111 1 INDEX at Pacific Coast Highway and Dahlia. He stated that the existing facility is on about 8,000 sq. ft. of land and is about 25 to 30 years old. He added that the proposal includes diesel fuel availability at the pump lock and that they would like to upward certify, doubling the size. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, replied that all of the commercial portion of Corona del.Mar is now shown on the General Plan as a mixture of retail and service - commercial and administrative, professional and fi'•nancial-com- mercial uses. In response to a second question posed by Commis - sioner Allen, Mr. Hewicker commented that if the Planning Commission permits the expansion of the strip commercial area in Corona del Mar into this area, that it further reduces the options for a • highway down the Fifth Avenue extension. In response to a third question posed by Commis- sioner Allen, Mr. Woodland. replied that in ac- quiring the additional property from the Irvine Company, they did not acquire square footage that is really satisfactory for them. He added that the property they acquired was acquired with the Fifth Avenue property. n response to a question posed by Commissioner eek, Mr. Hewicker replied that this area still xists as a C -1 zone until such time as the Speci- ic Area Plan.is adopted, at which Aime the zoning ould be changed. n response to a second question posed by Commis- ioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that the desig- ation on the General Plan is a mixture of retail nd service commercial and administrative, pro - essional and financial - commercial. ommissioner Beek stated his preference to direct his project in the commercial direction. -20- MINUTES February 7, 1980 CD I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX In response to a comment from Mr. 4ewicker, Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that it did not appear.to him that this would preclude a. Fifth Avenue alignment that was northerly of the existing Fifth Avenue and the frontage road; how- ever, if Fifth Avenue were extended directly through to join Pacific Coast Highway, it would be in the way. FREEWAY RESERVATION -EAST David Dmohowski, Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission regarding the freeway re- servation -east and stated that the Irvine Company does not have any specific proposal=s to make with- in the .next five years, and also stated that they have no problem with the proposal to redesignate it low- density residential at 4 dwelling units per buildable acre; however, that they would ob- ject to the suggestion in the Staff Report to redesignate it Open Space. • Commissioner Thomas suggested that this area would be a good location for a high- occupancy vehicle lane. BUILDABLE ACREAGE Regarding e.su iect of buildable acreage, Com- miss.ioner Beek suggested getting some topo.maps to specifically determine where the slopes, ri- parian areas and setbacks are. 0 ommissioner Balalis suggested aerial photographs. r.. Webb commented that they have available aerial hotos for the entire City which are horizonally. ontrolled, but that they do not have the area im- ediately around the bay or the bay itself. r. Lenard informed the Planning Commission that he Planning Department is funded phis year to con uct a whole new aerial survey which could be used n an overhead projector. r. Hewicker commented that the direction of the ity Council was that the specific wording that as to be added to the General Plan Amendment was o allow at the time that the Planning Commission -21- COMMISSIONERS February 7, 1980 0 G n W N 5' W City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX and the City Council were considering a Planned Community Development Plan or Tentative Map and that they could consider the deletion of certain areas in the calculations of permitted densities or square footages. He added that it was not the intent of the City Council to direct the Planning Commission to begin planning and defining these particular areas on every vacant siite around the upper bay at the present time and g,et back to them with a recommendation in time for them to hear it at the first City Council meeting i.n March. ommissioner en commented regarding a statement h the Staff Report stating that this regulation ay preclude roads needed to gain access to the uildings, inquiring as to which areas this might e a problem. Mr. Hewicker answered that this re- erred to Westbay and approximately 20% of New= orter North. • Mr. Dmohowski commented that they had. undergone some site evaluations as far as slope and that these evaluations indicated, except in a few cases, that the 2:1 condition wouldn't have an impact on where they would locate structures, or how many structures they would build. He added that it might have an impact on whether or not they could put a street through in a certain lo- cation. He used as an example the'Castaways site, in which case the best location for gaining access to that lower commercial portion where the trailer park is right now would require altering the slope along Dover Drive to get the proper turning ra- dius. He concluded that they did not feel that it would affect any area covered by the Bluff Ordinance. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas regarding the bikeways, Mr. Webb replied that in setting aside the Master Plan of Bike- ways, they did not make a determination as to Nether they would be onstreet or gffstreet. Commissioner Thomas expressed his 0oncern that there be a major buffer between the roads and the • bikeways. -22- COMMISSIONERS r-ID MINUTES February 7, 1980 of Newport Beach Mr. Hewicker advised the Planning Commission that if it is their intention to determine buildable acreage and deletion of'buildable acreage with individual sites, then the EIR and ;legal notifi- cation would necessarily have to beichanged. Commissioner Balalis expressed his 'feeling that natural riparian areas possibly should be exclude from buildable acreage and that photographs would aid in this determination. Commissi.oner Beek stated his preference to using topo maps. Motion Motion was made to continue General, Plan Amendment Ayes x K x x No. 80 -1 to the regular Planning Commission meet- Absent * * ing of February 21, 1980. • I I I I I I I (ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ublic Hearing was set for March 20, 1980 for an mendment pertaining to residential uses in the -1 -A District. * * * Motion JJ*JJ x Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Haidinger Ayes x x x from the regular Planning Commission meeting of Abstain February 21, 1980. Absent * * * here being no further business, the Planning ommission adjourned at 11:00 P.M. • Debra Allen, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -23- INDEX ADDI- TIONAL BUSINESS RESOLU- TT–O—NNo . 1050