Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/1983MMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7 :30 p.m. -- c DATE: February 10, 1983 - m m City of Newport Beach INDEX X IX IX IX I X1 X1 XI All Present. * * x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator W. William Ward, Senior Planner - Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary - - - x APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of January 20, 1983 Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Planning All Ayes X X X X X Commission Meeting of January 20, 1983, as written, which MOTION CARRIED. - - - � r c Q m x W m D February 10, 1983 of Newc)ort Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX • General Plan Amendment 81 -2 (Public Hearing) Items N 1 and 2 Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. CALTRANS WEST LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INO. 81 -2 ME FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS -. NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between LOCAL 5th Avenue and Harbor View Drive. .COASTAL PROGRAM B: Northerly, of 5th Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between 5th Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational ..ALL and Environmental Open Space. _ CONTINUED TO FEBRU- ZONE: R -1 -B (Single Family with B combining) ARY 24, District 1983 PROPONENT: The Irvine Company 110 11111111 -2 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 3 � � � c m m m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: .Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. • GENERAL PLAN. Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE:. C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive /Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1 -A (Industrial) District., A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C -1 (Commercial) District: PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach • I i ` ( I I INITIATED.BY: The City of Newport Beach 3 I� U • February 10, 1983 ice= m � m m m City of Newport Beach MIME Amendment No. 2 to MINUTES Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of - Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach' Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony was taken on the following items, beginning with the Fifth Avenue Parcels: IFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Area A Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of -550 -Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kennedy referred to the various maps which are shown in the General Plan and stated that there are inconsistencies with the Land Use Element and Land Use Plan. He stated that the actual location of the greenbelts must be determined before a decision is made, including the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the maps which Mr. Kennedy has referred to, are not engineering maps, ; but are maps which are drawn to indicate general concepts of development. -4- FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS MINUTES February 10, 1983 � r c W m m N. City of Newport Beach INDEX Planning Director Hewicker further stated that the precise amount of area would be determined at the time the zoning was placed on the property, or when there is an actual plan for development. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He expressed their concern with the elevations around the access areas at Sandcastle Drive and Marguerite Avenue. He requested that any site plan to be developed in the future, show elevation contours adjacent to Marguerite Avenue and Tiller Way. Commissioner Allen referred to Page 12 of the staff report, Item No. 6, and suggested the following wording: "That ocean and bay views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible." She stated that the additional wording of • "ocean and bay" views will clarify the intent. Mr. Crausy stated that the water view is the primary concern, however, their concern is not limited to the ocean and bay views. Chairman King stated that the grading of the site, will be so that the height of any roof along that area will be no more than three feet above curb, or that it would not interrupt the view plane of a person seated in an automobile travelling down Marguerite Avenue. Mr. Crausy stated that this was not obvious from the existing contour lines and requested that the elevation contour lines be continued .onto Marguerite Avenue and Tiller Way. Mr. John Dawson appeared before the Commission and referred to the comments made earlier by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dawson stated that he realizes that the differences between the maps are a graphics error, but the interpretation of the graphics error should be made in favor of the greenbelt system, rather than in favor of the development. He suggested that the City purchase Parcel A or acquire sufficient dedication to.make this as a greenbelt. He stated that by designating Parcel A as a greenbelt use, does not accomplish this. -5- 3 m � m Jv m> x m m a .m February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 1 I I I I I I INDEX Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that adopting_a zoning on the land does not necessarily change its land usage. He referred to the view park issue and stated that the park should be a usable, flat area for recreational activities and baseball diamonds. He stated that a view park area with a bench is not considered to be important. He stated that it would be possible to buy slope rights from the school, along with fill from The Irvine Company, to make a very useful park on what is presently unusable land. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Nichols stated he is President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, but there has not been an official vote taken on these issues..Therefore, he stated that he is speaking as an individual, unless otherwise indicated. Mr. Nichols referred to Page 12 of the staff report, • Item No. 5 and stated that the reference to "the assessment of in -lieu fees" should be deleted for Area A. He stated that the property which would be affected is worth much more than what the in -lieu fees would be. worth. Mr. Nichols stated that the Corona del Mar. Community Association wants Fifth Avenue to remain a two lane street with a maximum width of 32 feet, which would provide for parking on one side of the street only. Commissioner Balalis stated that the majority of the residential streets in Corona del Mar provide for parking on both sides of the street, in addition to two lanes of traffic. Mr. Nichols stated that their concern is that the street never be expanded to a four lane street without parking. Commissioner Balalis concurred with the concern expressed. Mr. Nichols stated that a 40 -foot wide street would require a tremendous amount of fill. Essentially, a 32 -foot wide street would eliminate the possibility of the Fifth Avenue corridor coming through this area. Mr. Nichols stated that by prohibiting parking on the north side of the street, this would allow the oasis facility to build a berm and install horseshoe pits. • He stated that with minor donations from The Irvine Company, a recreational field would be possible at Grant Howald Park. '.f'. MINUTES February 10, 1983 m w. City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern with the safety of a 32 -foot wide street which includes parking on one side of the street. He stated that it would not be safe or practical to parallel park or to open a car door on such a small width street. However, he stated, that he concurs with the concern that the street never be expanded in the future to a four lane street. Mr. Nichols stated that the wider the street, the faster the cars will move on the street. Commissioner Goff asked if the City has a requirement for the minimum size of a view park. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code which states that the minimum standard for a park is two acres. However, he stated that this does not necessarily apply to a view park. He stated that a view park can be considerably smaller in size. • Area B Mr. Grant Howald, resident of 243 Heliotrope Avenue, and President of The Friends of Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Howald stated that many members of their Board of Directors are present at tonight's meeting. He requested that the Oasis facility not be "fenced in" by this proposal, so that they can expand their facility in the future. Mr. H. Ross Miller, resident of 1627 Baycliff Circle, and Advocacy Chairman for The Friends of Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ross Miller described the services which the Oasis facility provides to the senior citizens of Newport Beach. He' stated that they are desirous of expanding the scope of Oasis to include a geriatric health care facility in conjunction with Hoag Hospital and the UCI Medical School. However, he stated that if the General Plan Amendment is approved as submitted, Oasis Center can not expand their facility. Mr. Ross Miller suggested that if The Irvine Company is allowed to build their development, they should consider donating several acres of land to the Oasis Center which would allow for future expansion. Or, he • suggested that the Planning Commission consider a buffer zone between the Oasis Center and The Irvine Company development. -7- � x � r c m - W 'c m 7C y D MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Chairman King asked the amount of land which would be needed for the future expansion of the Oasis Center. Mr. Ross Miller stated that approximately two to three acres would be needed. He stated that they are currently contemplating low, one -story buildings for the proposed expansion. Mr. Ross Miller stated that their existing parking lot is currently filled to capacity. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor view Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy expressed their concern with the density which is being proposed on Parcel B. He expressed their concerns relating to views and stated that the grading contours should be extended. He stated that future expansion of the Oasis Center should also be recognized. • Mr. Crausy expressed their concern with the use of alleys for traffic circulation. He stated that the existing alleys in Old Corona del Mar contain trash cans and broken fences and do not contain any significant landscaping. He asked how the City will ensure that the alleys will be suitably maintained and landscaped. He stated that the proposed development could be designed in such a manner that would not require the use of alleys. Mr. Crausy stated that if a Planned Community is being proposed for the site, his Community Association would like to have the opportunity to review the deed restrictions relating to height, variances, landscaping and enforcement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Crausy stated that the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South encompasses the area bounded by Marguerite Avenue, Sandcastle Drive, Jasmine Creek and Spyglass, all the way to San Joaquin Hills Road. Commissioner Allen stated that she concurs with the concerns expressed.by Mr. Crausy relating to the alley issue. She stated that the Commission must also • consider the need to provide the alternative of smaller housing on smaller lots. COMMISSIONERS I I I February 10, 1983 MINUTES 3 x � � c c m ] 7C GI m D of Newport Beach IIIIIIIII ROLL CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX • • Mr. Crausy stated that they are not objecting to the size of the homes. He stated that the elimination of Alleys would provide for larger lots, if the garage were to be located on the front portion of the house. Ms. Alice Remer, representing Oasis Center, and a member of the Housing Committee for the Orange County Senior Citizens Advisory Council, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Remer expressed their concern that senior citizen housing should be considered at this location. She stated that the City could apply for community development block grant funds, by which the City could purchase the land for such housing. She stated that this would provide low /moderate cost housing for the senior citizens of Newport Beach. She stated that more attention must be devoted to the needs of the senior citizens in Newport Beach. She stated that this is an ideal area because it could provide interaction with the Oasis Center. She stated that higher density and open space can be achieved with positive results. Chairman King asked Ms. Remer to further explain the type of housing she is proposing. Ms. Remer referred to other senior citizen housing areas in the County and stated that attractive, two -story rental housing can be developed, mixed with housing which would be available for purchase. Mr. Bud Desinburg, resident of 2231 Bayside Drive, stated that many people benefit from the services offered by the Oasis Center, which include educational, recreational and human resources activities. He stated that the Oasis Center must have enough space for future expansion, so that they may continue to offer such services to the people of the community. Dr. Brenda Ross, Chairman for the Long .Range Planning Commission for Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Ross stated that they are currently in the process of planning and developing an expansion for the Oasis Center, including a geriatric health education and daycare center. She stated that there are currently approximately 15,000 senior citizens in the City of Newport Beach. She stated that in the next five years, there will be approximately 25,000 senior citizens in the City. She stated that they would also like to be able to maintain as much park area as possible.. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES r February 10, 1983 . � r c Of Beach M ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX Chairman King suggested that when Oasis begins studying their plans for redevelopment, they consider the relocation and expansion of existing facilities on the site, and the possible use of satelite facilities in other areas of the City. Dr. Ross stated that they would be considering these alternatives as they begin their study. She stated that their present facilities were taken over from an elementary school, and were not intended for senior citizen use. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that he supports the concerns expressed by the members of Oasis. He stated that the area surrounding the Oasis Center should be preserved as a recreational /open space area. Mr. Nichols referred to Page 13 of the staff report, Item No. 4 and stated that the reference to "the • assessment of in -lieu fees" should be deleted for Area B. He further stated that Fifth Street should remain a two lane street with a maximum width of 32 feet. Mr. William Nelson, resident of 882 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nelson referred to Page 13 of the staff report, Item No. 5 and expressed his concern with the views which may be affected. He stated that the problem with the views from Sandcastle Drive would not be horizontal views, but would be with vertical views and the density of development. Area C Mr. Rick .Kartch, resident of 1014 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Commission. He expressed his concern with the preservation of Buck Gully, including the wildlife, flora and fauna. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, and representing the consensus of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that Area C should be withdrawn from the general plan amendment consideration. He stated • that the budget of the City should not be required to maintain this area as open space. -10- � r � P m 7C .n m D February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES IIIIIIIII R O L L CALL X 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Mr. Nichols stated that Buck Gully can not be used as park land because of the heavily sloped terrain. He suggested that The Irvine Company should be responsible for. the liability and upkeep of Buck Gully, and that they could possibly build one or two houses on the property. Chairman King stated that the suggested action for the Buck Gully Parcel would be to remove the alternate residential land use designation. Planning Director Hewicker concurred and stated that if the primary use of Recreational and Environmental Open Space is to remain, The Irvine Company, as the owner of the property, would like to be compensated. He stated that the value of the property would be difficult to determine, unless development plans were to be proposed for the area. He suggested that the alternative residential land use designation should be removed and that an easement be accepted for Recreational and • Environmental Open Space with the ownership remaining with The Irvine Company or a public agency which would be willing to accept the liability and maintenance of Buck Gully. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kennedy questioned the City's Local Coastal Program and the Buck Gully designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Planning Director Hewicker explained the differences between the LCP Land Use Plan and the General Plan. He stated that the suggested actions would reconcile the two documents. Mr. Kennedy stated that he was concerned that in changing four units per. acre to 10 units per acre in Area A and B, the buildable area of Area C would be transferred. Ms. Carolyn Higher, resident of Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Higher expressed her concern that if Buck Gully is opened for public use, there will be security problems, such as the use of motor bikes. She stated that they have already had problems with hunters shooting at the wildlife in Buck Gully. She requested that Buck Gully remain a wildlife • reserve, for the preservation of the flora, fauna and natural wildlife. -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 m w. City of Newport Beach �sa�m _m ROLL CALL7 INDEX Commissioner McLaughlin suggested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24; 1983, for further public input and the presentation by The Irvine Company. * . r The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. x CALTRANS WEST- - CALTRANS WEST Mr. David Simmes, representing the State of California, Department of Transportation, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Simmes stated that the site was purchased in 1964 for the Coast Freeway. He stated • that the site is no longer required for the Coast Freeway and is considered excess land. He stated that it is their intent to sell the property, after a residential land use designation has been established. Mr. Simmes referred to two renderings of the site which depicted a development of approximately 140 units, including a buffer zone between Newport Crest and a neighborhood park. He stated that these renderings are only meant to illustrate what could be accomplished on the site in question. Mr.. Simmes stated that the West Newport area is deficient of developed park lands. He stated that this site would satisfy the City's Housing Element with the development 'of affordable housing. He referred to an aerial photograph of the property as it currently. exists, and 'stated that development of the site would upgrade the property. Mr. Simmes stated that they are in concurrence with the staff recommendations and conditions on the parcel. He added. that any development on the property should preserve_ the view lines for the adjacent homeowners. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Page 12 of the 1+ staff report and suggested the following revisions to • Conditions No. 6 and 7 as follows: -12- 3 x � r � D v MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX 6. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 7. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Zoning on CalTrans West shall not occur until such time as CalTrans and City of Newport Beach have mutually agreed to one access point not to exceed 50 feet in width from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. I I ( I I ( I Commissioner Goff expressed his concerns relating to • access to the property, park dedication and view preservation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Simmes stated that the optimum access to the site would be from Bluff Road. He stated that there may be a requirement that emergency vehicles enter from Superior Avenue. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern with the safety of taking access off of Superior Avenue. Commissioner Goff referred to the park dedication issue and stated that what was originally proposed on. the site, according to the environmental document, did not meet the three criteria of flatness, access and shape. Mr. Simmes stated that as it exists, the site does not meet these requirements. However, he stated that engineering in the future may be able to meet these needs. Mr. Simmes stated that they are agreeable to the greenbelt located adjacent to the Newport Crest development. Mr. Simmes further stated that all of the constraints and concerns should be identified now, before a developer purchases the property. He stated that in this way, the future developer of the, property will be aware of such constraints and concerns. • Commissioner Goff stated that an activity park of approximately five acres is a requirement of the Banning /Newport Ranch development. He stated that a view park is designated on the site. in question and asked Mr. Simmes the location of the view park. 540 MINUTES February 10, 1983 3 x a � r c _. m = W m 7 7C � - > City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI 111 1111 INDEX Mr. Simmes stated that the view park should have a view and the best location for such a park would be to the east of Superior Avenue, after it is realigned. He stated that at this location there is a. substantial view of both Newport Harbor and the ocean. He stated that this location is not the highest elevation of the property, but affords the best view site. Commissioner Goff asked if CalTrans would be agreeable to dedicating a pedestrian easement along the remaining bluffs on CalTrans West, as is currently the case on the CalTrans East bluffs. Mr.- Simmes stated that this could be a possibility if it were to be utilized in conjunction with a circulation plan for the parcels to be developed. Commissioner Goff stated that the exact location of the activity park as a. requirement of the Banning/Newport Ranch development should be decided upon by a • comprehensive review of the Recreational and Environmental Open Space Element by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. He asked if it would be possible to delineate a portion of the CalTrans site for this purpose prior to the parcel being developed. Mr. Simmes stated that this would be possible. He further stated that a combination of park land on CalTrans West and Banning/Newport Ranch property may be possible. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern with view preservation and stated that there are many balconies in the Newport Crest development. He asked how these views will be preserved which are adjacent to the higher elevation portions of the CalTrans West property. Mr. Simmes stated that view preservation is an important issue and is physically possible to achieve through proper engineering. Commissioner Goff asked if it would be possible to terrace the property to establish building pad elevations early in the process which would assure the residents of Newport Crest that their views will be preserved. Mr. Simmes stated that this is a more technical element of the development and would not occur in the preliminary stages of the development. -14- � r c V m 7c .n m a MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX However, Mr. Simmes stated that they would be willing to commit themselves, as a condition of the project, to the definition of the preservation of views. Such as, the views would be preserved for someone standing on the lower balcony who is five feet tall, who can see the water. He stated that from such language, an engineer can compute the sight line. Mr. Ross Benedict, resident of 19 Encore Court, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Benedict suggested that the park land study to be performed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and the study addressing the geotechnical aspects of the earthquake fault should be made a condition of the project, prior to approval of the General Plan Amendment. Chairman King stated that the Planning Commission will receive input from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation • Commission prior to a decision being made upon the project. He stated that there have been several geological and geotechnical studies 'made of the area over the past few years, which have already been made available to the City. Ms. Barbara Cope, resident of 16 Kialoa Court, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Cope stated that ideally, the CalTrans West parcel should remain as Recreational and Environmental Open Space for a park area and a cultural center. However, she stated that she realizes the amount of money which it would take to purchase the property from the State. Ms. Cope expressed her concern that a greenbelt be required to serve as a buffer to the Newport Crest development. She stated that terracing of any development on the Caltrans property should also be required to protect the views for the Newport Crest development. She stated that park dedication is also an important issue and that the exact location of the park should be determined at the tract map level. Ms. Cope suggested that the developer of the CalTrans West site help Newport Crest to acquire Ticonderoga • Street, by providing the lost parking spaces which would be necessary for this acquisition, which is approximately 105 parking spaces. -15- � r c 'v m 7c G1 m D MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Ms. Cope suggested that the developer of the CalTrans West site should pay for the traffic signal at the entrance of Ticonderoga Street. She further suggested that the area adjacent to Superior Avenue be made more attractive. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Ms. Cope stated that Newport Crest is trying to acquire Ticonderoga Street as a private road. She stated that in order to do this, the number of parking spaces which would be lost in its acquisition would have to be replaced elsewhere. Mr. Chris Hansen, resident of 22 Encore Court, and representing the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hansen distributed to the Commission a letter dated January 10, 1983, which outlined the concerns and questions of the Association. These concerns and questions related to . maintaining CalTrans West as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, if funding was available for its acquisition using Banning /Newport Ranch in -lieu fees, careful protection of those areas designated for parks and open space, not changing the land use of CalTrans West until the West Newport Study Area is completed, increased density, traffic impacts, grading, view parks, the time frame for GPA 81 -2, and if a park be obtained by a development agreement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hansen stated that Newport Crest was in concurrence with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommendation that the park be located on. CalTrans West site when the Banning/Newport Ranch issue was being considered. Commissioner Balalis stated that the park dedication site was to be located on the Banning /Newport Ranch site. Commissioner Balalis also stated that in order for it to be a usable park, the park could not be located on the CalTrans West site, without extensive grading, of the site. Mr. Hansen stated that the lower elevation portion of the CalTrans West site is very flat. Commissioner Balalis stated that the lower elevation • portion of the CalTrans West site would not appear to be easily accessible for the children of the area who would be utilizing the park. -16- � r c c m D February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Hansen stated that the lower elevation portion of the CalTrans West site would be as accessible as any other site which would be located within the confines of the Banning /Newport Ranch area. BIG CANYON AREA 16 No comments were received regarding this item. NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 Chairman King noted that the City Attorney had prepared a memorandum dated February 7, 1983, relating to the concerns expressed at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Robert Burnham, -City Attorney, stated that he has discussed his memorandum with Mr. Layman. Mr. Burnham stated that additional information, including the allowable square footage which remains under the terms of the lease, will be provided at the next Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Will Layman, representing Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc., appeared before the Commission, stating that he would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. There being no questions at this time, the Campus Drive item was heard next. CAMPUS DRIVE' Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff is in the process of compiling the information which was requested at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He stated that staff will be submitting a range of alternatives for this particular area which the Commission may wish to consider at their next meeting. AMENDMENT NO.- 2 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH- LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM No comments were received regarding this item. -17- BIG AREA 16 n 7c � c February 10, 1983 of Newaort Beach MINUTES M ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Motion Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment 81 -2 All Ayes X X X X and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983, so that the staff can compile the requested information. F. :l Request for an extension of time in conjunction with the approved Resubdivision No. 637, that permitted the combining of one parcel and portions of Block 92 and 93 of Irvine's Subdivision into one building site so as to permit the expansion of the Baywood Apartment complex on the property. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 45 -10 (Resubdivision No. 311), and portion of Blocks 92 and 93, Irvine's Subdivision, • located at 1601 San Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. David Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the extension of time in conjunction with the approved Resubdivision No. 637. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker stated that there will be no further discretionary approvals required on this item. He stated that all of the standards for the development • of the property are contained within the Planned Community text and would not require further Planning Commission approval. Elm Item #3 INO. 637 d mCity VI 9 3 m IC -n M February 10, 1983 � � E ro m cm 7C ni Beach MINUTES M ROLL CALL I III III I I INDEX Motion Ayes Abstain • 0 Commissioner Goff stated that he would not feel comfortable in approving the extension. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the Commission is empowered to either approve or deny the extension, the Commission is not empowered to impose additional conditions upon the extension. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if there were to be a change to the resubdivision, such as increasing the number of permitted dwelling units, the Planned Community text would have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. X Motion was made for approval of a two {2) year X X X extension of time in conjunction with the approved X Resubdivision No. 637, subject to the following findings and condition, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITION: 1. That all the conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 637 be fulfilled as approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1980. -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 � c 07 m m o y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Request for an extension of time in conjunction with Item #4 the approved Tentative Map of Tract 10019, that permitted the subdivision of 80.5± acres into one lot for commercial development, seven lots for industrial /office development and two lots for further subdivision into residential lots. LOCATION: A portion of Lots 224, 442 and 444, TENTATIVE Block 57, of Irvine's Subdivision, MAP OF located on property bounded by Bison TRACT Avenue, Camelback Street, Jamboree Road, NO. 10019 the extension of Eastbluff Drive, and (Extension) MacArthur Boulevard, in the Planned Community of North Ford. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: William G. Church, Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc., Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this, item and Mr. .David Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission_ Mr. Dmohowski distributed a letter to the Commission dated February 10, 1983, which requested that the Planning Commission take action to accept, the final map as having been filed. He stated that beyond that, they will consent to a continuance of this matter, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that he will supply the Planning Commission with additional information on this request at the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion X Motion was made to continue the Tentative Map of Tract All Ayes X X X X ]]X No. 10019 to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. -20- Continued to Febru- ary 24, 1983 MINUTES February 10, 1983 r c m y. City of Newport Beach W R O L L CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX Request to permit the construction of an accessory garage structure on property located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard which exceeds the height of the top of curb of Ocean Boulevard. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a proposed handrail for a walkway in excess of three feet in height to encroach into a required 10 foot front yard setback and to allow the subject accessory garage structure to be located on the front one -half of an R -3 parcel. The accessory structure will be constructed on the site in conjunction with the construction of a single family dwelling that conforms with the permitted height limits. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 36 -3 (Resubdivision No. 274) located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard at the southwesterly terminus of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Edward Giddings, AIA, Newport Beach OWNER: Carl Quandt, San Jacinto The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Alvin Howard, attorney representing the owner, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Howard stated that the steepness of the subject property creates a unique situation. He explained the history of the property in question and the problems which have been encountered at the Coastal Commission level. He stated that the Coastal Commission is requiring that the garage he located on the front portion of the site. Mr. Howard stated that the only view which.is involved with this proposal is a narrow view between two structures .which are much higher than the proposed garage. He stated that the Findings for Denial can not, in good conscience, apply to this proposal. He • stated that if the proposal is not approved, the owner can do nothing with the property. -21- Item #5 VARIANCE NO. 1095 Continued m � m Jv m > x m ° a � m m February 10, 1983 Beach MINUTES INDEX Mr. Howard stated that the owner concurs with the Findings and Conditions of Approval and therefore, requested that the proposal be approved. Mr. Kent Moore, owner of property located at 2500 and 2502 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Moore stated that he is representing approximately 45 Ocean Boulevard and surrounding residents which are opposed to the subject request. He distributed a color photograph of the site and excerpts of the November 4, 1982, Coastal Commission staff report. He stated that the Coastal Commission staff report states that the bluff should not be disturbed except that portion of the site which needs to be graded to create a pad for the garage. He further stated that structures adjacent to the subject property which were built over twenty years ago, which exceed the current height limitation, should not be a determining factor in considering this request. Mr. Moore requested that the application be denied and that the applicant be required to make a design change in his project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker explained the conversations which he has had with the Coastal Commission staff regarding the Coastal Commission staff report dated November 4, 1982. However, he stated that the Coastal Commission, to date, has not extended the courtesy of a reply to his letter of December 24, 1982. Mr. Howard stated that he has a copy of the revised Coastal Commission staff report dated November 4, 1982, which recommends that the project be redesigned providing the required parking on the existing driveway, on the front portion of the site, using the existing walkway for access to the structure. Mr. Howard stated that the project was originally designed with the garage located on the lower portion of the site, however, he stated that the Coastal Commission does not want the garage located on the lower portion of the site. Commissioner Balalis asked if the applicant is required to go back to the Coastal Commission, after the City • has made a determination upon the project. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant will be _22_ n x � r c 'c m 7C G1 m D February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES M ROLL CALL I III III I I INDEX required to go back to the Coastal Commission. He suggested that the single family dwelling be redesigned which would locate the garage lower on the site, which would meet the requirements of the Land Use Plan and satisfy the needs of the applicant and the surrounding property owners. He stated that the Coastal Commission has never had the opportunity to make a determination on a single family dwelling for the site, the past projects have been for multi - family dwellings. Mr. Howard stated that many plans have been designed for the property. However, he stated that in speaking with Mr. Praveen Gupta,the Coastal Commission staff member in charge of this project, has stated that the project will only be approved with the garage located' on the front portion of the site. Mr. Howard stated that it would be unreasonable for the Planning Commission to require the applicant to redesign the project in such a manner that would be denied by the . Coastal Commission. Commissioner Balalis asked why the Coastal Commission will have to review this project, if the project is designed to meet the requirements of the City's Land Use Plan. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Coastal Commission is required. to act upon the project because a vacant parcel is being developed on the water which is in the coastal zone. He stated that he feels that the proposed project does not meet the City's Land Use Plan, however, he stated that the Coastal Commission staff member feels that the proposed project meets the City's Land Use Plan. Planning Director Hewicker stated that he feels that the City, of Newport. Beach should be able to interpret their own Land Use Plan. Mr. Richard Nichols, representing the .Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission, and distributed to the Commission their letter dated February 9, 1983, requesting that the variance be denied .because both public and private views will be lost. He stated that presently there is a steep drive on the property to a much lower level, and stated that • there would be no, problem in constructing a garage at the lower level. -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 � x m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Nichols stated that the Corona del Mar Community Association would support the applicant in front of the Coastal Commission, if the garage were to be located on the lower portion of the site. Mr. Edward Giddings, architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Giddings stated that the Coastal Commission has drawn limitations as to where the single family dwelling and garage can be located on the site. He stated that the garage must be located on the upper portion of the site with street access. He stated that the garage has been located as low as possible off of the street. Mr. Giddings distributed a drawing which indicated the alternate location of the garage on the lower portion of the site, as suggested by the surrounding property owners. He stated. that there would be a 20 percent slope of the driveway, which is the maximum slope • recommended by the City and creates a great hardship. However, Mr. Giddings stated that the Coastal Commission would not approve the alternate location of the garage. Planning Director Hewicker stated that another alternative would be to waive the parking, in terms of a garage space, and allow the applicant to park his vehicle out in the open. However, he stated that this would not appear to be a desirable alternative. Commissioner Balalis asked if the 45 residents who signed the petition opposing the application, would be willing to support the applicant in.a' redesign of the project at the Coastal Commission level. Mr. Moore stated that if the applicant could redesign the project as suggested, they would be willing to write a letter to the Coastal Commission which would be in support of the redesigned project. He stated that a garage structure could be built and partially cut into the bluff area. Mr. Howard reiterated that the Coastal Commission will not approve a plan which has the garage located on the • lower portion of the site. He stated that the Coastal Commission regards every rock on the site as an out- cropping which can not be covered, therefore, he stated that they are limited in locating the structures on the site. -24- MINUTES February 10, 1983 � r c y. City of Newport Beach Mr. Howard stated that after all of these years, the owner of the property is running out of stamina and money to pursue this project. He urged approval of the proposed project and stated that the proposed garage in question is only wide enough to accommodate one vehicle. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker stated that to the best of staff's knowledge, the Coastal Commission has not been presented with plans for a single family dwelling with a garage on the site. In response to questions posed by Chairman King and Commissioner Goff, Mr. Howard stated that the proposal has been discussed with a staff member of the Coastal Commission, which has indicated that the garage will not be approved on the lower portion of the site. • Mr. Carl Quandt, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Quandt stated that the Coastal Commission has made it very clear that the garage is to be located on the upper portion of the site. He stated that plans of the proposed project have been mailed to the Coastal Commission and they have indicated that the location of the garage on the upper portion of the site, as indicated, would be approved: Commissioner Allen stated that it is grossly unfair that one member of the Coastal Commission staff can do the planning for an entire .City. She suggested that the Commission either approve the application with the garage located below the curb height, or continue the application. She suggested that the Corona del Mar Community Association and the surrounding neighbors send their letters of support for the redesign of the project, to the applicant and the Coastal Comm ission. She stated that if the redesign of the project meets with the requirements of the Land Use Plan and the approval of the surrounding neighbors, she stated that the Coastal Commission members will be able to make a determination; rather than relying upon the opinion of one Coastal Commission staff member. She further stated that if this project should fail at the Coastal • Commission level,.the fee by the City should be waived, if the applicant must resubmit plans to the Planning Commission. - - -25- MINUTES February 10, 1983 w. City of Newport Beach INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant must obtain an Approval in Concept from the City before submitting the project to the Coastal Commission. He stated that the application could be approved with the condition that the garage not exceed the top of the curb. However, he stated that this would affect the location of the garage and the grade of the driveway. He suggested that this item be continued in order for the architect to redesign the plan which incorporates the desires of the Planning Commission and the surrounding neighbors. Chairman King stated that in the interim, further communication can be made with the Coastal Commission. Planning Director Hewicker stated that communication should be made with the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission located in San Francisco. Mr. Howard stated that in order for the garage to be located below the sidewalk, a massive driveway will . have to be .designed, the cost of which would. not support the development of a single family residence. He stated that the steepness of the lot would necessitate the building of a bridge which would create an impossible burden. Mr. Giddings reiterated that the Coastal Commission will not allow the construction of a driveway which leads to a garage located on the lower portion of the property. Chairman King asked Mr. Giddings if he had ever approached the individual members of the Coastal Commission for their opinions on the proposed project. Mr.. Giddings stated that the Coastal Commission members are not usually available for comment. Mr. Nichols stated that they are not requesting that the applicant design an impossible project. He stated that there is an area on the lower portion of the lot which could accommodate the garage, without the need for a massive driveway. Motion x Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning All Ayes X X X X K K K Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983, so that the applicant can redesign the single *family dwelling with the garage located below the curb and' that in the interim, the City staff will pursue communication with the Coastal Commission at the executive level. x -26- February 10, 1983 n F �c m � W m m o F City of Newport Beach M • Motion I XI All Ayes X X X • MINUTES INDEX Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a take -out food establishment (Der wienerschnitzel) in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposed amendment is to allow the addition of an outdoor eating area to the existing restaurant and a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces for said expansion. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map.No. 108 -27 (Resubdivision No. 557) located at 4501 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road, between Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. T ZONE: P -C APPROVED APPLICANT: Der Wienerschnitzel, Inc.,. Newport Beach CONDI- TIONALLY OWNER: The Koll Company, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. James Caulfield, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this item. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1797 (Amended), subject to the following. findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off - street parking spaces and traffic circulation are being provided for the proposed development. -27- • r 1 U MINUTES February 10, 1983 n 7: � r c _. c m = 7c — D m m ,n W O City of Newport Beach 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the waiver of a portion of the parking requirements for the expanded take -out restaurant facility will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1797 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and 'floor plan. 2. That a portion of the required off - street parking spaces (i.e. 29 spaces) are waived. 3. That all applicable conditions of approval of the original Use Permit No. 1797 shall be maintained. OK M INDEX n x � r c 'c m R Gf m > MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newoort Beach Request to permit the construction of a combined commercial- residential structure in the C -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required commercial off - street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Lot 15, Block 431, Lancaster's Addition, located at 421 31st Street, on the northerly side of 31st Street between Villa Way and Newport Boulevard, in Cannery Village. ZONE: C -2 APPLICANT: Jon A. Shepardson, Newport Beach OWNER: Hugo V. Schmidt, D.D.S., Newport Beach • The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Shepardson, the applicant, appeared before the Commission, and requested approval of this item. Mr. Shepardson stated that he will be residing in the residential portion of the building. In response to a question posed by Commission Goff, Mr: Shepardson stated that he anticipates that an antique shop will utilize the commercial portion of the building. Commissioner Goff stated that he does not envision retail customers parking in a garage or preferring to utilize tandem parking spaces. Mr. Shepardson stated that the proposed parking plan will accommodate the parking for the use. He stated other commercial/ residential projects in the area utilize a similar parking arrangement which have been proven to be affective. Commissioner Goff asked how a first time customer to the retail shop would be aware that parking was available in a structure located behind the building. Mr. Shepardson stated that as the Cannery Village . continues to develop, the retail customers will become more aware of the parking arrangements. _29_ INDEX Item #7 USE PERMIT NO. 3017 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY n x v m T. G) °i D MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Planning Director Hewicker stated that in -lieu parking fees have been required on projects which can not provide parking on -site and where a Municipal lot is, located within a reasonable distance. He stated that in the past, the Planning Commission has approved the use of tandem spaces for commercial /residential projects, similar to this request. Commissioner Goff stated that if sometime in the future an alternative parking arrangement is provided for the Cannery Village, can the tandem parking spaces be converted to an income producing area for the owner, as an incentive for the owner to contribute towards a better parking arrangement for the entire Cannery Village. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the possibility may exist someday, that there may be public parking facilities provided in this area. He stated that if this should occur, the property owners could • submit plans to the Planning. Commission to convert existing garage spaces on the site to expand their retail use or for storage purposes. Mr. Shepardson stated that he is in favor of any ideas which would benefit the Cannery Village area. Commissioner Allen referred to Condition of Approval No. 4 and stated that she concurs with the condition that requires that the commercial parking spaces shall not be enclosed with garage doors. Commissioner Goff concurred. Motion JXJXJXJ J J J XJ Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3017, y and the related environmental document, subject to the Noes following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the prop Use Elements Coastal Plan land uses. 2. The project . environmental osed use is consistent with the Land of the General Plan and the Local and is compatible with surrounding will not have any significant impact. -30- INDEX MINUTES February 10, 1983 F :E m ° m m m. 3 City of Newport Beach INDEX 3. That the proposed development substantially meets or exceeds the development standards of the C -R District (building height, parking spaces, buildable area, etc.). 4. That the establishment of commercial tandem parking spaces on the site, will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3017 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to • the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or 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 plan, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That a .minimum of four (4) off - street parking spaces (including two (2) tandem 'spaces) shall be maintained at all times for the commercial use on the property. 3. That one tandem parking space and the accessible parking space in front of said tandem space shall be reserved for the proposed residential unit at all times. 4. That all off - street parking spaces shall. be utilized. for vehicular storage and that the commercial parking spaces shall not be enclosed. • with garage doors. -31- r E m m d Cityof February 10, 1983, Beach MINUTES M R O L L CALL I 1 1 1 Jill I INDEX 0 • 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from 31st Street, the adjoining alley or adjoining properties. 6. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 7. The project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. 8. The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. 9. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restric- tions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The John Wayne 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 available, a complete phase out of 'jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) 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 air service at the John Wayne Airport. • I I I I I I I 10. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -32- February 10, 1983. � z N. City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 11. That concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement be constructed along the 31st Street frontage, and that all improvements be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Grades for the improvements will be provided by the Public Works Department. 12. That the commercial and .residential units be served by individual sewer laterals and water services. 13. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 14. That the adjacent 14 -foot alley be improved with concrete per city alley standards. Grades for the • alley improvements will be provided by the Public Works Department. Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially - significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. • * r The Planning Commission recessed at 11:15 .p.m. and reconvened at 11:20 p.m. -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 3 F �c d " m m m w. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I INDEX Agenda Items No. 10 and 11 were heard next on the Agenda. Request to permit the construction of a two -unit Item. #1'0 residential condominium complex and related parking spaces on property located in the R -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow second floor pot shelves with open USE PERMIT wrought iron railings and a 12 inch window projection NO. 3019 to encroach into the required 3 foot side yard setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue. AND AND • Request to create one parcel of land for residential condominium purposes where one lot presently exists. Item #11 LOCATION: Lot 17, Block 132, Resubdivision of Corona del Mar, located at 217 Fernleaf Avenue, on the southwesterly corner of Fernleaf Avenue and Seaview Avenue, in Corona del Mar. RESUS- ZONE: R -2 I NO. 740 APPLICANTS: Walter Drake /Raymond Rodeno, Pasadena OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa BOTH Agenda Items No. 10 and 11 were heard concurrently, due to their relationship. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition of Approval No. 7 for Resubdivision No. 740, and suggested that this condition be deleted. He stated that the applicant has obtained the curb .cut permit. from the.: City Council for the street access. -34- C /V\AMSSIONERSI MINUTES February 10, 1983 � r c C 0 m m m w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing opened in connection with these items and. Mr. Donald Stevens, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of these items. Commissioner Allen referred to Finding No. 6 for Use Permit No. 3019 and suggested that the following wording be added: The pot shelf encroachments are being approved because it is a second story open grillwork, does not obstruct any views and is not located in the public right -of -way. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3019, All Ayes X X X X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, with the additional wording to Finding No. 6, as suggested by Commissioner Allen, which MOTION CARRIED: • . FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will substantially comply with all applicable standard 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 requirements in effect' at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. I ( I I I I 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available • for the proposed residential condominium development. -35- MINUTES February 10, 1983 � r c m � m m w. City of Newport Beach 6. That the proposed second floor side yard encroachments along Seaview Avenue sill not, under the circumstances of the particilar case, be detrimental to the health, safety, ipeace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood �r the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. !,The pot shelf encroachments are being approved b cause it is a second story open grillwork, does n t obstruct any views and is not located ini the public right -of -way. 7. The establishment, maintenance or o0eration of the • use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, ipeace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to 1property and improvements in the neighborhood car the general welfare of the City. • CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be iA substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as not4d below. 2. That one garage space and one carpgrt space shall be provided for each dwelling unit.{ 3. That any wall or fence located within the required 15 foot front yard setback shall! not exceed a height of 3 feet above grade. 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 740 be fulfilled. -36- INDEX r c m � m m d > city of February 10, 1983 Beach MINUTES E ROLL CALL I 111 Jill I INDEX Motion Motion was made for approval of Resubdivlision No. 740, All Ayes X X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, with the deletion of Condition No. 7 as suggested by staff, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision Or the proposed improvements will not conflict with�any easements, acquired by the public at larg , for access through or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirementslof 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. 3. That the proposed resubdivisionll presents no problems from a planning standpoint.', CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements, be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvemelnts, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completioniiof the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be sewed with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and), sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the) Public works Department. • 5. That a 10- foot - radius corner cutofflat the corner of Seaview Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue be dedicated to the public. -37- MISSIONERS � r c x m > City of J J 0 1J + N J MINUTES February 10, 1983. i Newport Beach M ROLL CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 6. That the sidewalk be reconstructed! at the corner of Fernleaf Avenue and Seaview Avenue to fill the corner cutoff area, and that a curb access ramp be constructed. This work is to be completed under an encroachment permit issued by t}}�ie Public Works Department. 7. Deleted by the Planning Commission. 8. That the proposed driveway be paved out to join I the existing asphalt alley, and that the paving be completed prior to occupancy. i Request to permit the construction of a combined retail Item #8 commercial /office building, and a related parking structure with offices, which exceed the basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District and includes an architectural feature that exceeds 35 feet in height. The proposal also includes; a request to establish a cafe /lounge facility, a nighttime only USE PERMIT restaurant, and an office area in excess of 5,000 NO. 3018 sq.ft. on property located in the C -1 District in the Central Balboa Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted. The request (also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of parking spaces that are not independently accessible and compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking in conjunction with a full time valet parking service, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND AND Request to establish one parcel of land for retail commercial and restaurant development, !lone parcel of Item #9 land for a private vehicular and pedestrian access, and one parcel of land for office and parking uses, where seven lots and portions of two lots, 'I a portion of Edgewater Place and a portion of al public alley proposed to be vacated presently exist. The proposal RESUB- also includes a request to establish �rades for the DIVISION purpose of measuring the heights of proposed.buildings. NO. 739 f m, m x m D City of xa 7 7 d N MINUTES February 10, 1983 I Newport Beach R O L L CALL I I I I J i l l I I INDEX LOCATION: Lots 1,2,3,7,8,9,10, and Portions of Lots 4 and 11, Block 3 ',of the Balboa BOTH Bayside Tract, a portion of Edgewater CONTINUED Place and a portion of A public alley TO FEBRU- proposed to be vacated, located at 309 ARY 24, Palm Street, on the westerly side of 1983 Palm Street between East Bay Avenue and Newport Bay in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Balboa Bayview Development, Inc., Balboa OWNERS: Rolland Vallely Family Trust, Balboa; Balboa Bayview, Development, Inc., .. Balboa; Mike Fazzi, Balboa; and Donald Franklin and James Ray, Carona del Mar. • I I I I I I I I. ENGINEER: UMA /RGB Engineering, Inc.„ Irvine Agenda items No. 8 and 9 were heard concurrently, due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Jules Rickless, the applicant and developer of the proposed project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Rickless stated that) the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding area. He referred to the site plan and an artist's rendering of the proposed) project and delivered a presentation which outlined carious aspects of the project, including a description liof the retail uses on the first level, a dinner house and outside terrace dining on the second level, a a cafe type restaurant and an open public terrace which would open to the general public on the third level. Mr. Rickless stated that the key focal point of the building will be a glass elevator.. He also discussed the design of the parking structure and the use of the space -o -matic system. • -39- MINUTES February 10, 1983 3 � m � m m y City of Newport Beach INDEX Chairman King suggested that Mr. Rickless contact the local community and homeowner associations of the area and present the proposed project to the members in order to obtain feedback from the various associations. Commissioner Goff requested that a silhouette from the Bay be prepared of this project, in relationship to the Pavilion and approved Fun Zone project. Mr. Rickless stated that he will have a silhouette prepared. Commissioner Allen requested that more information be provided regarding the seating capacity of the restaurant, the cafe, and the potential seating capacity of the public area on the third level. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, referred to Condition of Approval No. 87 of Use Permit No. 3018 and stated that this condition was also utilized in the • approval of the Fun Zone project. Mr. Talarico stated that this condition provides that if any roads are to be changed directionally, the project entrance can be changed accordingly, which may cause minor changes to the project. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the Conditions of Approval which relate to the width of the sidewalk on East Bay Avenue. He stated that the current sidewalk has a width of 5� feet. He stated that the City Engineer has recommended that the sidewalk be widened to 8 feet. He stated that in the event this occurs, the width of the parking garage, the alley, or the width of the public walkway in front of the project will have to be reduced. He stated that the* City Engineer is recommending the 8 foot sidewalk so that several people can walk abreast on the sidewalk and also allowing for the opening of car doors along the street. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Planning Department is recommending that street trees be placed in the 8 foot sidewalk, however, the City Engineer. is recommending that there be no street trees placed in the sidewalk. He stated that he will be meeting with the City Engineer to resolve these issues. • -40- chi � >mm03 City of February 10, 1983 Beach MINUTES RORM Chairman King suggested that Mr. Rickless deliver his presentation to the following associations: The Balboa Improvement Association, The Central Balboa Community Association, The Central Balboa Merchants and Homeowners Association, The Balboa Peninsula Point Association, and the three associations on Balboa Island. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Peninsula associations are the important ones to address, and possibly the Balboa Island Improvement Association. Motion Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning All Ayes X X X Y X X X Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983, so that staff and the applicant can compile the requested information, and the applicant can meet with the various associations to deliver his presentation,.which MOTION CARRIED. Agenda Item No. 12 - Amendment No. 583 and Agenda Item No. 13 - Amendment No. 584, were continued to the Planning Commission of February 24, 1983, due to the lateness of the hour. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Commissioner McLaughlin requested information on the following items for the Planning .Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983: 1) A change in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, such as a sunset clause, being consistent with the use permits. 2) Review of the project by the architect Brion Jeannette - Amendment No. 581, Use Permit Permit No.. 3011 and Resubdivision No. 737. She stated that if the City Council feels that the changes being made on the project warrants reconsideration by the City Council, • that the Planning Commission would like to have the opportunity to review the project because the City -41- � x � r c > LM February 10, 1983 WI 1 MINUTES W-ROIL CALL I III III I IINDEX 0 • i Council would be reviewing a project which the Planning Commission had not had the opportunity to comment upon. Mr. Burnham. City Attorney, stated that if this is to be a new project, he recommended that the project be referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for a re- hearing. 3) Has the City initiated any requirements relating to fire retardant roofing material. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:55 p.m.. Dave Goff, Secretary_ Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -42-