Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1977COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach 9 @�� 99(�09'�,pO'S9� ( ,> 0 -IP Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 P.M. a Date: February 17, 1977 POLL CALL Present X X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planninc Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator William R. Foley, Environmental Coordinator Dave Dmohowski, Senior Planner Fred Talarico, Senior Planner Shirley Harbeck, Secretary Motion X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 10, All Ayes 1977, were approved as written. Items No. 1 and No. 3, part C, were heard con- currently because of their relationship. Presentation of an Environmental Impact Report and consideration of Specific Area Plan No. 5 fi Mariners' Mile. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach A proposed amendment to the Circulation Element change the designation of Pacific Coast Highway the Mariners' Mile area from a "Major Road - Si Lanes Divided" to a "One -Way Couplet" with thre travel lanes in each direction. Advance Planning Administrator Covell reviewed background and purpose of the Specific Area Pla and the two major aspects which included land u and circulation and parking. He advised that t Page 1. MINUTES INOEX Item #1 AMENDMENT )r . NU. 458 CONT. TO MAC 3 Item #3 -C to GENERAL in PL�— x AMENDMENT e 77-1-C CONT. TO MARCH 3 thel se he COMMISSIONERS vO v P� T 1 5G s� �y City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL one -way couplet concept was the result of recom- mendations made in the Environmental Impact Repc Mr. Cowell pointed out that the two proposed ple were basically the same as to land use and that the major difference was in the circulation sysi with Alternate A proposing the widening of Coasi Highway and Alternate B proposing the one -way couplet concept. City Engineer Nolan reviewed the history of the one -way couplet concept, advising that the coup( was considered and dropped subsequent to the Voorhees study and prior to the adoption of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Howev( in preparing the Environmental Impact Report foi Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan, it was learn( that the projections used by Voorhees in the Mariners' Mile area itself were substantially less than the actual increase in traffic which would be generated by future development and, therefore, it was felt that the one -way couplet should again be reviewed. Mr. Nolan reviewed the general configuration of the one -way couplet as well as the projected traffic and levels of service, depending on the ratio of development permitted. He also review, a graph showing the relationship between traffi delays and intersection capacity utilization. was pointed out that the 1995 projections were based on the completion of the entire circulati, system, including the University Drive and San Joaquin corridor, and that additional through traffic would be added to Coast Highway if the above were not completed. It was also pointed out that when the bay bridge was completed, the bottleneck which now exists at Dover Drive will be transferred to the Mariners' Mile area and that the consequences of increased congestion include more delays, accidents, air and noise pollution, and by- passing of traffic onto adjac local streets. Mr. Nolan reviewed the benefits of the one -way couplet which included improved traffic capacit bicycle and pedestrian circulation, better acce to some of the adjacent properties, parking possibilities, and minimizing the impact of building intensity. The disadvantages of the one -way couplet included cost (4 million dollar as compared to 1.5 million dollars for the Page 2. MINUTES 1NO Z.X art. ins :em et !r, ad • Bd It ) n ?n s i • s COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach February 17. 1977 MOLL CALL widening of Coast Highway), and need for the lar itself which would be lost to the property owner as well as delays in the use of the land pendinc improvements of the one -way couplet system. Mr. Nolan commented on the feasibility of the one -we couplet as well as the efforts and attention of CALTRANS to utilize existing highways now that the freeway program has come to a halt and prior ities being given by the Federal Aid Urban.Syste Advisory Committee and the Orange County Highway Arterial Program Technical.Committee. In conch sion, Mr. Nolan stressed the magnitude of the traffic problem which could be foreseen which wi very very serious. Senior Planner Talarico reviewed the general concept of the Specific Area Plan, and the chant which have been initiated since the last public hearing contained in both Alternate Plan A and Alternate Plan B. He advised that both plans were divided into two parts, one being the Specific Area Plan which established policies for development and served as a bridge between the General Plan and the more specific zoning ordinances, and the other being the Specific Pl+ District which would replace existing zoning in the area. Mr. Talarico reviewed the proposed zoning and the uses which would be allowed, as well as the incentive program proposed. He advised that both plans were identical as to development standards, that the existing height limit of 26/35 feet would be maintained, that the intensity of development was correlated wit traffic at .5 times the buildable.area, parking was with the "H" district standards, landscapin would be required along Coast Highway and in pa ing lots, setbacks would be required from Coast Highway similar to that required in the Mariner Mile Square development, and site plan review would be required. He reviewed the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR including the intensity of development, the circulation syste visual environment and consistency of land use terminology and air quality standards. He also reviewed the supplemental information report . developed by the City staff and J. J. Van Houte & Associates as the noise consultant and Hank Mohle & Associates as the circulation consultan He further reviewed the impacts of the one -way couplet vs. the improvement of Coast Highway widening. Page 3. MINUTES INOix id. I ly !m is ies US I 3 'k- ; I n, 1 t. COMMISSIONERS City of Newport, Beach t�tp ( �' MO February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL Staff answered questions of the Commission rela- tive to the cost implementation and existing density of development. Staff also distributed correspondence received from Edward G. Healy, Ardell Investment Company, Robert V. Staats, Inc and Evelyn R. Hart. Public hearing was opened in connection with thi matter. Clarence Herbert, 243 Ocean View Avenue, appeare before the Commission and felt that the one -way couplet was a pseudo freeway to which he objecte and therefore recommended the adoption of Plan I His objection to the one -way couplet included acquisition of additional property, and increasf noise and traffic adjacent to the residential area. Bob Sangster, President of the Newport Heights Association, appeared before the Commission and advised that the Board took no position on the issue of the .5 times buildable density; that th( had no objections to the land use provisions; that the EIR should address the impacts of Marii Mile traffic on the adjacent residential street! such as Riverside, Tustin, Cliff, and the link -i of Avon to Santa Ana; took no position on the issue of the one -way couplet; and that the traf- aspects should be considered separately from thi land use aspects. They also felt that any con- sideration of the traffic flow along Coast Hight should be reviewed as a whole, including Corona del Mar, and not be considered in a piece -meal fashion. Linda Scheck, 501 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Cliffhaven Home owners Association and advised that the Board strongly endorsed the .5 times buildable densit. and requested that a separate traffic circulati study of the Newport Heights / Cliffhaven area be undertaken to determine the impacts from the Mariners' Mile area as well as the commercial area to the north in Costa Mesa. As an individ she endorsed the one -way couplet which would to to move traffic through the City at a smoother pace thereby eliminating bleed -off traffic thro the residential area due to traffic congestion along Coast Highway. Page 4. MINUTES I • Manx s d d �d IN to ' tp 'i , 7a )n as •id .Ig COMMISSIONERS 9 1i F • � 7 7s O�4 S� � A. City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 MOLL CALL Brion Jeanette, 453 Santa Ana, appeared before . the Commission in favor of the one -way couplet and the proposed density, however, he voiced concern that the only access into the residentii area would be on Riverside Drive which would increase traffic on that street. He felt that z study of the bleed -off traffic should be made before adopting any plan to determine its effect on bicycle and pedestrian traffic and requested that the homeowners associations be notified. prior to review of the various site plans. Traffic Engineer Darnell appeared before the Commission to answer questions relative to the bleed -off traffic into residential areas and reviewed the statistics as presented on Page 24 of the Supplemental Information.Report. Bonnie Jeanette, 453 Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition contain - approximately 80 signatures which endorsed the density, questioned the one -way couplet, and requested a thorough study of the residential area with respect to the traffic circulation, noise, air pollution, and property values and the safeguards which must be taken to prevent negative impacts on the area. Bonnie Shrack representing the PTA from Newport Heights, Horace Ensign and the high school, appeared before the Commission and voiced conce with the lack of sidewalks in the area and con- curred with the need for a study, especially wi respect to Riverside, Tustin, Irvine, Clay, 15t1 and 16th Streets. Al Nelson, 534 E1 Modena, appeared before the Commission and suggested that Riverside, Tustin and Santa Ana be turned into cul -de -sacs thereb keeping the.Heights as a residential community. He also suggested that an overpass be construct to connect the residential area with the commer cial area for the benefit of pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Nelson answered questions of the • Commission relative to his proposal. Brion Jeanette appeared before the Commission a reviewed a study and plan he made utilizing cul de -sacs and diverting traffic from the residen- tial area to either Dover Drive or Old Newport Page 5. MINUTES rn th e nd INONX COMMISSIONERS City of moy February 17 Newport Beach 1977 ROLL GALL Boulevard. He also felt that a pedestrian over- pass made sense between the two areas. John Jakosky, 1718 Terrapin Way, appeared before the Commission and commented that the one -way couplet would be a fine scheme to move traffic through Newport Beach but questioned the movemel of traffic within Mariners' Mile. He felt that Alternate Plan A would allow for a more workab -l( flow of traffic within Mariners' Mile. He also felt that as soon as a plan has been adopted, ti City should proceed with the distribution of fui for the required property within a period of 90 days, because once a plan has been established, the effected properties could no longer be deve' oped by the property owner. He also commented on the City's intent to keep the area for marin oriented uses but pointed out that the Tax Asse! was actually doing the planning and that marine oriented businesses were being forced out of thi area due to the increased taxes. He questioned the City's justification in outlining where witl a building tenants should be located, and felt that the site plan review procedure should be eliminated and more guidelines established so t development could be on an equal basis rather t subject to the whims of whoever was on the Comm sion at the time. He urged the City to work wi the County Tax Assessor in whatever way possibl in order to keep the area a marine oriented center. D. T. Daniels with Ardell Investment Company, 2077 West Coast Highway, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the one -way couplet and in favor of the Alternate Plan A. They fel that the one -way couplet would hurt business because it would be difficult for people who ar unfamiliar with the area to find their way; tha to limit the density to .5 times the buildable because of traffic was unjust because most of t traffic through Mariners' Mile was created by other locations with a higher density such as Fashion Island; and that maximum setbacks shoul be established so that property owners can plan developments based on regulations rather than the whim of the then - present Planning Commissio He answered questions of the Commission, advisi that because of the high property taxes being assessed, the .5 times buildable was not practic Page 6. MINUTES • [A-14D it le ids ;so1r iiri • is is is t e t e t he d • n. ng al COMMISSIONERS Newport M vQ PQ 1a 1a SG as City Of Beach MINUTES C. a ap "iF a • a �� p C ao� February 17, 1977 MOLL CALL . if it was the intent of the City to retain the - area for marine oriented businesses. At this point, Planning Commission discussed hypothetical developments which could take place at the .5 times buildable density. Jose Rosan representing J. R. Investment Company appeared before the Commission in opposition to One-way couplet because it would destroy their parking lot and any trade -off for another locati would not be acceptable. He also pointed out th if parking were implemented on the south side of Coast Highway as a result of the one -way couplet marine oriented businesses would suffer because the configuration would make it impossible to truck boats into the boat yards and display area adjacent to the parking lot. Pat O'Daily, 105 Via Antibes, appeared before tf • Commission on behalf of E1 Torrito. As an indit dual, he could not see how the couplet would mot traffic any faster through Mariners Mile than P1 A. From a commercial standpoint, it was felt tf physical identification was essential to the success of the business and that the one -way couplet would be detrimental to their business. Vin Jorgenson, 1533 Antigua Way, appeared before the Commission and pointed out that the adjacen• residential area also generated traffic within their own area and that the residents do use Mariners' Mile, therefore, all the traffic with Newport Heights and Cliffhaven did not come frog the Coast Highway. He commented in opposition the one -way couplet and felt that it would have an adverse effect on businesses in the area. Hi also commented on the inequality of the tax assessments in the area. Margaret Motta, 2700 Cliff Drive, appeared befo the Commission and advised that the chief Conte of the adjacent residents was for the safety of the children. • Randy Seaton resident of Balboa Island, appeare before the Commission on behalf of Amelia's Restaurant in opposition to the one -way couplet because they would lose part of their parking 1 to the rear of the restaurant. Page 7. ti a s e i- e an at n t ;o ^e ^n I ) t INOGX COMMISSIONERS SO,L City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 MOLL CALL - John Zwears, 2944.Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commission and commented that the traffic of the one -way couplet could have an effect on the present use of the neighborhood parks. Terry Slayback, 426 Riverside, appeared before the Commission and felt that the residential any commercial areas were related and that they muse be looked at simultaneously to determine what effect one had on the other. She also endorsed _. the .5 times buildable density. Owen Minney appeared before the Commission and_ commented on the effect of the Post Office in generating traffic and felt that it should be moved. He also opposed the one -way couplet and the .5 times buildable density and felt that thi present 2.0 times buildable should remain. Linda Sheck, 501 Cliff Drive, pointed out the City Traffic Engineer's recommendation regardin the need for a separate traffic study for the Newport Heights area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:45 P.M. Commissioner Agee proposed that the Commission discuss the issues raised but delay action unti the next meeting in order to have time to thor- oughly study the matter. Planning Commission discussed the proposal but deferred any decision on the continuance until after the discussion: - Commissioner Balalis commented on the relation- ship between the residential and _ commercial are and the adverse effect of the one -way couplet o the commercial area. With respect to the densi Commissioner Balalis commented in support of th .5 times buildable, however, he felt that some modification should be made in order to allow planners, builders, developers, and property Page 8.. MINUTES as n e INDEX • COMMISSIONERS Newport Arm v S S 1 S City of Newpo t Beach MINUTES • R v vS oSp 1m 3S `� S goy February 17. 1977 ROLL CALL owners the opportunity to be more creative in th area through criteria established which could allow the density to increase up to .75 times th buildable and preclude "look - alike" development within Mariners' Mile. Commissioner Frederickson commented on the probll involved and his desire to sort out the many issues pertinent to Mariners' Mile before any action was taken, therefore, he favored a contin uance of this matter to the next meeting. Commissioner Hummel commented on the preservatic of residential communities and the need to find better way to convey people around the City in order to preserve these communities while at the same time provide for the needs of the merchants He, therefore, felt that this matter should be continued in order to further review the social and economic impacts involved with this decisior Commissioner Cokas commented on what he felt waa the three major concerns; i.e. the problem of moving traffic on Coast Highway; residential safety in the bluffs, and the viability of the businesses in Mariners' Mile. He felt that either plan would help the safety factor within the residential area because there would be less bleed -off traffic due to the smooth flow of traffic on the highway. As to the effect of the one -way couplet on the businesses, he felt that more information was needed and favored a continuance of this matter. Commissioner Seely commented on the issue of preserving the area for marine oriented busines and the apparent difficulty in view of the Tax Assessor's attitude and the persistent high taxi He also commented on his preference for a one -w. couplet and concurred with the suggestion to allow some flexibility in the density. Commissioner Agee commented that marine oriente uses may no longer be a reality and that the on way couplet concept was a dream because none of • the businessmen seemed to be in favor of the couplet and the cost would be prohibitive. He suggested that a list of incentives be devised relative to the matter of density and felt clarification was needed with respect to the si plan review provisions. Page 9. iaoe.x e e ?ms n a s I. les as ty i to COMMISSIONERS °c��� City of Newport Beach 17 1077 'ROLL CALL Commissioner Heather commented on the traffic problems within the City and the need to work together towards some solution. Motion X Motion was made that discussion of the above All Ayes matters be continued to the meeting of March 3, 1977. Request to permit the extension of Use Permit NI 1576 that allowed a parking and storage lot for boats, campers, trailers and other recreational vehicles on Mariners' Mile. Location: Portion of Lot A, Tract 919, loca at 2300 West Coast Highway, on th, northerly side of West Coast High way, easterly of Tustin Avenue on Mariners' Mile. Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Bart Christler, Newport Beach Owners: Robert H. Brown and Mildred B. We South Laguna Bart Christler, applicant, appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter and requested that Alternative No. 1 be granted as recommended in the staff report. He advised th he would require at least 90 days on either of the alternatives granted. Mildred Wells, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission and advised of their 15-y( dilema with respect to developing the property because of the threat of a freeway, then a park ing lot, and now a one -way couplet. Therefore, she questioned why any improvements should be made to the property until some decision was made as to it disposition. Planning Commission discussed the storage area and the terms which had been agreed upon by the applicant at the time the use permit was grante Page 10. MINUTES :ei I1 at gar M •- INDEX Item #2 USE PERMIT 1576 EXTENSION GRANTED CONDO TION7F1 is COMMISSIONERS �����1�s� ;�m� City of Newport Beach 0\ Ys �,p sot February 17. 1977 ROLL CALL Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that Plan. All Ayes ning Commission extend the Use Permit for a per, of one year and instruct the applicant to remo, the existing storage from the unpaved portion o the site. Further, instruct the applicant to restore and maintain the unused portions of the site in a clean and orderly condition within a period of 90 days. Request to consider proposed amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan. Public hearing was opened in connection with th matter. The following discussion and actions were taken 77 -1 -A: A proposed amendment to the Land Use a Residential Growth Elements to change the desig tion of five lots located at 207 -215 19th Stree on the Balboa Peninsula from "Two- Family Reside tial" to "Multi - Family Residential." Jerry Shoffner, 2025 Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owner to answer any questions the Commission ma have regarding the proposed development. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recomm All Ayes approval of General Plan Amendment No. 77 -1 -A. 77 -1 -B: A proposed amendment to the Circulatio Element to delete the "Secondary Road - Four Lanes Undivided" designation for that portion o Backbay Drive between San Joaquin Hills Road an the intersection of Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road just north of Pacific Coast Highway. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recomm All Ayes approval of General Plan Amendment No. 77 -1 -B. (Note: 77 71 -C was considered together with Ite No. 1, Amendment No. 458, Mariners' Mile Specif Area Plan.) Page 11. MINUTES od re F is INO @K Item #3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 -1 nd 77 -1 -A na t APPROVED n- Y en n 77 -1 -B f APPROVED d erd m is COMMISSIONERS 9Q 7 n0 P Sm SG S� City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 {TOLL CALL 77 -1 -D: A proposed amendment to the Land Use Element expanding the boundaries of the Corona del Mar Specific Area Plan area to include resi- dential areas north and south of Coast Highway. Said expanded area could include all of "Old" Corona del Mar (bounded generally by Avocado Avenue on the west, the properties adjacent to and northerly of Fifth Avenue, on the north, Buck Gully on the east, and the shoreline on the south) or a portion thereof. This amendment wol result in a requirement that a "Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission, in accordar with Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Mun* cipal Code, be obtained prior to new development in said expanded Specific Area Plan area. Commissioner Hummel proposed that Alternative 3 be adopted. Senior Planner Dmohowski reviewed the boundarie! of the three alternatives. Commissioner Agee advised of his preference for Alternative 1. He felt that the larger areas could be very time - consuming and would open up the possibility of a site review on every develi ment in the Corona del Mar area which would not seem very practical. Commissioner Hummel felt that inclusion of addi tional area other than just those properties adjacent to the commercial district may be necessary in order to solve some of the arteria or circulation problems which exist. Commissioner Balalis commented that the reason for a Specific Area Plan was to solve various problems in an area; that the problems in the Corona del Mar residential area could be handle through the residential development standards; and that the smaller the area in the Specific Area Plan, the quicker the plan could be estab- lished and the problems resolved within the commercial area. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that Plan All Ayes ning Commission recommend approval of Alternati No. 1 in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 77 -1 -D. Page 12. MINUTES • INDEX 77 -1 -D APPROVED ALTERNATE NO'. 1 ilc I" ICE )p. vel 0 COMMISSIONERS Q A M 9p� 9C �nt��F292� ;��R City Of Newport Beach MINUTES $y February 17, 1977 POLL CALL 77 -1 -E: A proposed amendment to the Residentia' Growth Element to revise the definition of "Bui' able Acreage" by adding wording to the effect ti any area devoted to streets, open space, or recreation areas shall not be included in cal- culating Buildable Agreage. Motion X Motion was made that Commission recommi All Ayes .Planning approval of General Plan Amendment 77 -1 -E. 77 -1 -F: A proposed amendment to the Land Use al Residential Growth Elements to change the desigi tion of four lots at the southeast corner of Dahlia and Fifth Avenues in Corona del Mar from "Two- Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial" and "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial." Staff answered questions of the Commission rela tive to the City Council action which resulted • referring this matter back to the Planning Comm sion for reconsideration. Ray Brummett, 436 Seaward Road, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission and advised that the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce was opposed to the R -2 zoning and felt that the proposed duplexes were not a good development for the entrance to Corona del Mar, but rather a good commercial development was better for this location. Brion Jeanette, Architect, 504 North Newport, appeared before the Commission in favor of the R -2 designation and reviewed a map which he had prepared in support of the residential develop- ment. Duane Mitchell, one of the principals in JPD Development, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition with 27 signatures in favo of the change to the R -2 zoning. He pointed ou that all of these people were residents within the immediately adjacent area. • George Hauser, 605 Marigold, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission in favor of the R -2 designation. Page 13. ONOEX 77 -1 -E Id- ea t APPROVED end id 77 -1 -F ia- DENIED in is COMMISSIONERS 9cm oc ° °a��m y� s� ;mmm City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission deny General Plan Amendment 77 -1 -F and recommend to the City Council that the property remain in the "Two- family Residential" designation. Commissioner Agee advised of his opposition to the motion because he was not convinced that the property should be zoned for residential purpose Commissioner Balalis pointed out that it was the desire of the immediate residents to make the property R -2 and that a change back to commercia would be in direct opposition to their wishes. Commissioner Hummel commented that the desires c the community should be taken into consideratior however, the desires of the Chamber of Commerce should also be considered. Ayes X X X X X Following discussion, the motion was voted on ar Noes X X carried. Motion X Motion was made to continue the final action on All Ayes General Plan Amendment 77 -1 to the meeting of March 3, 1977. Request to enlarge the existing Le Biarritz Caff and change from beer and wine only to full serv- bar. Further request to waive a portion of the required parking spaces, and to accept an offsi- parking agreement for a portion of the required parking spaces. Location: Lot 26, Block 8, Tract 27, locate4 at 414 North Newport Boulevard, of the northeasterly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, adjacent to Newport Heigh Zone: C -1 Applicants: Yves and Christine Briee and Yvan Humbert, Newport Beach Owner: John Vogel, Newport Beach Page 14. MINUTES • INDEX S. 1 f d1 e Item #4 USE ce PERMIT 1053 :e AMEND €D CONT. TO MM UFT A I ;s. • COMMISSIONERS w' Cl } ly Of Newport Beach MINUTES 0 � p < February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL Motion X Planning Commission continued this matter to the All Ayes meeting of March 3, 1977. Request to permit the relocation of an approved drive -up teller facility in conjunction with the Bank of Newport complex on the site. Location: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2166 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Zone: P -C • Applicant: Bank of Newport, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with thi matter. Paul Ruffing, Architect for the Bank of Newport, appeared before the Commission in connection wit this matter. He requested that they be allowed to relocate their existing convenience signs although two of them do carry the name of the bank. Assistant Community Development Director Hewicke advised that the condition recommended was the standard condition relative to convenience signs and that it was not the City's intent to require brand new signs for this temporary use. Therefc the staff had no objection to the relocation of the existing signs for the short time they woulc be in use. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. • Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make V All Ayes following findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with thl Land Use Element of the General Plan and is Page 15. TA re I INOE.X COMMISSIONERS Newport 9WF�y9GO�P�s9�G;�t��� City of Beach MINUTES f s°z February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. Adequate offstreet parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development. 4. Adequate provisions for traffic circulation are being made for the drive -in teller facility. 5. The Police Department has indicated that thl do not contemplate any problems, provided that the proposed auto - teller booth is equipped with a robbery alarm system to the Police Department to be operated by the isolated teller. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1759 (Amende 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.neigl borhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhoi or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1759 (Amended) subje to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and parking layout. 2. The traffic flow pattern to the drive -up teller units shall be from an easterly to a westerly direction. 3. That the proposed auto - teller facility shal be equipped with a robbery alarm system to the Police Department to be operated by the isolated bank teller. 4. Convenience signs such as "entrance," "exit or "drive- through" teller shall have a maximum area of 6 square feet. Said existi convenience signs to be relocated may inclu the name or logo of the bank use. Page 16. �y i) 1- Dd , ng de INOEX • COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach .0 F� C �s °y February 17, ROLL CALL 0 Motion All Ayes 1977 .11 applicable conditions of Resubdivi- lo. 540 shall be met. :he termination of this application coincide with the termination of the ial Use Permit No. 1759. I create one parcel of land for commer- opment. Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2166 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. P -C Bank of Newport, Newport Beach The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Newport Beach MINUTES firing was opened in connection with this ing, Architect, appeared before the n on behalf of the Bank of Newport and with the staff report and recommended S. ng no others desiring to appear and be e public hearing was closed. s made that Planning Commission make the findings: the proposed map is consistent with cable general and specific plans. the design or improvement of the pro - subdivision is consistent with appli- general and specific plans. Page 17, INDEX Item #6 RESUB- DIVISION APPROVED CC N TIMACLY 5. That i Sion I 6. That shall origil Request t, cial deve Location: Zone: Applicant Owner: Engineer: Public he matter. Paul Ruff Commissio concurred condition There bei heard, th X Motion wa following 1. That appli 2. That posed cable 1977 .11 applicable conditions of Resubdivi- lo. 540 shall be met. :he termination of this application coincide with the termination of the ial Use Permit No. 1759. I create one parcel of land for commer- opment. Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2166 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. P -C Bank of Newport, Newport Beach The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Newport Beach MINUTES firing was opened in connection with this ing, Architect, appeared before the n on behalf of the Bank of Newport and with the staff report and recommended S. ng no others desiring to appear and be e public hearing was closed. s made that Planning Commission make the findings: the proposed map is consistent with cable general and specific plans. the design or improvement of the pro - subdivision is consistent with appli- general and specific plans. Page 17, INDEX Item #6 RESUB- DIVISION APPROVED CC N TIMACLY COMMISSIONERS {, City ly Of Newport l Beach MINUTES W °z February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause sub- stantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the pi posed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict witl any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, proper, within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the propos subdivision will not result in or add to an; violation of existing requirements prescribe by a California Regional Water Quality Cont Board pursuant to Division 7 (commenting wi Section 1300) of the Water Code. 9. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. and approve Resubdivision No. 540, subject to t following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a new driveway approach, approximately 30 feet wide with 15 -foot radius curb retur be constructed so that it is centered with Avocado Avenue on the south side of East Coast Highway. 4. That the existing driveway approach easterl of Avocado Avenue be closed up. Page 18. • IN Off ly m 1dow7i �d !d 10 :h ie I is, • COMMISSIONERS F • � TC'� 7� 1pp� sA�'�i(L� CL City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 MOLL CALL, 5. That the two existing driveway approaches westerly of Avocado Avenue be closed up. 6. That the existing parking facilities in the easterly side of Avocado Avenue right -of -way may be continued until the right -of -way is required for street construction. 7. That the work along East Coast Highway be done under an encroachment permit obtained from the California Department of Transporta tion. 8. That future access, if permitted, to Avocadc Avenue and East Coast Highway be determined when the Planned Community text and develop- ment plans are established for this area. 9. That a standard subdivision agreement with accompanying security be provided if it is . desired to record the parcel map or obtain z building permit before the public improvemer are completed. 10. That an irrevocable offer of dedication be processed for the portion of future Avocado Avenue right -of -way within Parcel 1 which hi not yet been offered for dedication; and th( all improvements within the future Avocado Avenue right -of -way be removed by the devel- oper or the landowner when the area is need( for street construction. Appeal from the decision of the Modifications Committee which approved with conditions a requi which would have permitted first and second floc room additions on a single family dwellingg with the following nonconforming features. 1.) A po tion of the existing dwelling unit encroaches t within 6 feet t of the rear property line (where the Ordinance requires a 10 foot rear yard); an • 2.) The required garage spaces have depths of 11 feet 5 inches t (where the Ordinance requires garage depths of 20 feet, inside measurement). A portion of the proposed second floor room add tions also encroach to within 6 feet t of the Page 19. MINUTES INOex is s t !d Item #7 MODIFICA- �s t TIN-TO-20 Ir APPEAL GRANTED I CONDI- TINALLY I a i- COMMISSIONERS is •A� �� me POLL CALL City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 arty line (where the Ordinance requires rear yard). Lot 7, Block 634, Canal Section, located at 612 Clubhouse Avenue, on the easterly side of Clubhouse Avenue, northerly of Short Street in West Newport. R -2 Richard 'Williams Same as Applicant Same as Applicant MINUTES Community Development Director Hewicker ed and reviewed a map of the area show - elationship of the property to Newport aring was opened.in connection with this r, 250 East 16th Street, Costa Mesa, before the Commission and advised that al in concept was granted by the Coastal n based on a 5 foot setback and when the ion was applied for, the City determined encroachment was to a 10 foot rear yard He advised that the architecture of the house as well as economics did not lend a setback of 10 feet on the second tion of the addition. . Community Development Director Hewicker hat one of the problems was in trying line the setback on the Newport Boulevard he property. At the time the structure nally built, an alley right -of -way ehind the property which would have a 5 foot setback. Since that time, ; oulevard has been reconstructed and the 1ht -of -way has been absorbed into the ight -of -way, thereby making the subject a through lot with streets on either a districting map indicates a 5 foot d setback on Clubhouse Drive which makes loulevard the rear of the property which luire a 10 foot setback. The approval in Page 20. • INDEX 0 • rear prop a 10 foot Location: Zone: Applicant Owner: Appellant Assistant distribut ing the r Boulevard Public he matter. Don Hubne appeared an approv Commissio modificat that the setback. existing itself to story por Assistant advised t to detern side of t was origi existed b required Newport E alley ric highway r property end. The front yat Newport E would re( arty line (where the Ordinance requires rear yard). Lot 7, Block 634, Canal Section, located at 612 Clubhouse Avenue, on the easterly side of Clubhouse Avenue, northerly of Short Street in West Newport. R -2 Richard 'Williams Same as Applicant Same as Applicant MINUTES Community Development Director Hewicker ed and reviewed a map of the area show - elationship of the property to Newport aring was opened.in connection with this r, 250 East 16th Street, Costa Mesa, before the Commission and advised that al in concept was granted by the Coastal n based on a 5 foot setback and when the ion was applied for, the City determined encroachment was to a 10 foot rear yard He advised that the architecture of the house as well as economics did not lend a setback of 10 feet on the second tion of the addition. . Community Development Director Hewicker hat one of the problems was in trying line the setback on the Newport Boulevard he property. At the time the structure nally built, an alley right -of -way ehind the property which would have a 5 foot setback. Since that time, ; oulevard has been reconstructed and the 1ht -of -way has been absorbed into the ight -of -way, thereby making the subject a through lot with streets on either a districting map indicates a 5 foot d setback on Clubhouse Drive which makes loulevard the rear of the property which luire a 10 foot setback. The approval in Page 20. • INDEX 0 • COMMISSIONERS VQ y �O A 1 yG eta . 9f� �4 F� E•�'t'F L soy City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL concept was issued on the basis that an alley existed to the rear of the property which was incorrect. Planning Commission reviewed a petition containi 27 signatures in favor of the modification reque which was submitted by R. A. Williams. They als discussed the matter of setbacks and noise. R. A. Williams appeared before the Commission it connection with this matter, commenting on the history of the property, and advising that the additional setback of 4 feet would not make any difference with respect to noise which they hav( lived with since 1946. Planning Commission discussed the condition relative to sound attenuation of the entire structure and felt it should only apply to new • construction. Mrs. Richard Williams appeared before the Commis sion to thank them for their consideration and felt that the noise would not be a problem. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission overru' All Ayes the decision of the Modifications Committee and grant the appeal subject to the following condition: 1. That the new construction be sound attenuate in accordance with the City standards for new structures. Request to establish a small animal clinic in tl Newport Hills Center. Location: Lot 1, Tract 9014, located at 2670 San Miguel Drive, on the sou easterly corner of San Miguel Dri and Ford Road in the Newport Hill Center. Zone: P -C Page 21. MINUTES INDEX n !st 0 e Id Item #8 to USE PERI th- e s NO. 181 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS A 1,. City of Newport Beach MINUTES pS °i February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL Applicant: Neil M. Boodman, Irvine Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Neil Boodman, applicant, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommendations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make th .All Ayes following findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with th Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. Adequate parking has been allocated in the common parking lot for the proposed develop ment. 4. The small animal clinic will be insulated i such a manner as to restrict animal noises the interior of the facility. 5. The Police Department has indicated that th do not contemplate any problems. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1815 will no 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 neighbo hood or be detrimental or injurious to pro- perty or improvements in the neighborhood o the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1815, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. Page 22. e n to ey t , r- INDEX L� • COMMISSIONERS City of �c v � Fahruary 17 Newport Beach ICiil MOLL CALL 2. The small animal clinic shall be insulated in such a manner as to restrict animal noise to the interior of the facility. 3. Airconditioning shall be installed and operable at all times. Exterior doors and windows shall be kept closed. 4. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shz be screened from public streets or adjoininc properties. 5. Medical observation of sick or wounded animl shall be allowed all night. However, no other overnight boarding of animals shall bl permitted at any time. 6. That a landscape plan for the landscaped arl surrounding the proposed office building sh+ be submitted to and approved by the Directoi • of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. Said landscaping shall be continuously maintainer 7. That this approvdl shall be for a_period of two years, and any extension shall be appro� by the Modifications Committee. Request to permit the construction of a duplex and related garage spaces in the C -1 District. The proposed duplex encroaches to within 7 feet of the rear property line (where the Ordinance requires a 10 foot rear yard setback in the C -1 District when abutting an alley). Location: Lot 10, Block 3, Balboa Tract, located at 406 East Balboa Boule- vard, on the northerly side of Ea Balboa Boulevard, between Cypress Avenue and Adams Street in Centra Balboa. . Zone: C -1 Applicant: Properties West, Inc., Newport Be Owner: Dennis P. McCarthy, Upper Lake, Calif. Page 23. MINUTES s 11 As ias 111 red 5 INOi.X Item #9 USE PERMIT N 18 7 APPROVED CONDI- TINN-IFELY COMMISSIONERS \\0 City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 MOLL CALL _ Public hearing was opened in connection with thi matter. Dana Smith appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant and concurred with the staff report and recommendations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make V All Ayes following findings: 1. That the proposed residential development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding 1 -and uses. The proposed development will also eliminate an older single family dwelling on the site. 2. That the proposed development meets or excel all of the required Residential Development Standards (i.e. floor area limit, open space option, building height, parking, etc.) 3. That the establishment of a 7 foot rear yar setback along the rear property line will ni under the circumstances of the particular c be detrimental to the health, safety, peace comfort and general welfare of persons resi ing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbo hood 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. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1817 will no 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 neighbo hood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborho or the general welfare of the City. and.approve Use Permit No. 1817, subject to the following condition: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. Pa a 24. MINUTES 1 Iaoax s e :ual, )t, Is , i- t, r- od COMMISSIONERS • vi��; `� POLL GALL r 1 lJ City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 10 and No. 11 were heard concurrently f their relationship. MINUTES permit the construction of two duplexe! !d garage spaces in the C -1 District. . proposed duplexes encroaches to within the rear property line, and the second :roaches to within 3 feet of the rear ine (i.e. second floor only) where the requires a 10 foot rear yard setback in strict when abutting an alley. Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3, Balboa Tract, located at 414 -416 East Balboa Boulevard, on the north• westerly corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street in Central Balboa. C -1 Properties West, Inc., Newport Beacl Atlantic Richfield Corp., Los Angel create two parcels of land for 11 development where four lots now Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3, Balboa Tract, located at 414 -416 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street in Centri Balboa. C -1 Properties West, Inc., Newport Beacl Atlantic Richfield Corp., Los Angeles Page 25. INDEX Item #10 USE PERMIT NT 1818— APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Item #11 RESUB- DIVISION NF-09 APPROVED CONED TIONALLY 1 Items No. because o Request tc and relate One of the 5 feet of duplex en( property 1 Ordinance the C -1 Di Location: Zone: Applicant Owner: Request ti residenti, exist. Location: Zone: Applicant Owner: 10 and No. 11 were heard concurrently f their relationship. MINUTES permit the construction of two duplexe! !d garage spaces in the C -1 District. . proposed duplexes encroaches to within the rear property line, and the second :roaches to within 3 feet of the rear ine (i.e. second floor only) where the requires a 10 foot rear yard setback in strict when abutting an alley. Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3, Balboa Tract, located at 414 -416 East Balboa Boulevard, on the north• westerly corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street in Central Balboa. C -1 Properties West, Inc., Newport Beacl Atlantic Richfield Corp., Los Angel create two parcels of land for 11 development where four lots now Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3, Balboa Tract, located at 414 -416 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street in Centri Balboa. C -1 Properties West, Inc., Newport Beacl Atlantic Richfield Corp., Los Angeles Page 25. INDEX Item #10 USE PERMIT NT 1818— APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Item #11 RESUB- DIVISION NF-09 APPROVED CONED TIONALLY 1 COMMISSIONERS s� s� City of Newport Beach \ t February 17, 1977 MOLL CALL Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Me Commissioner Hummel commented on the structures across the alley from the proposed development and voiced concern that they may be encroaching into the alley thereby causing some difficulty in the use of the proposed garages. Public hearing was opened in connection with thi matter. Dana Smith appeared before the Commission on behalf of Properties West, Inc. and concurred with the staff reports and recommendations. Paul Morgon, 421 Harding, property owner across the alley, appeared before the Commission and advised that a survey had been made which revea' that the fence was on his property line. Staff advised this would indicate that the structure encroached into the 5 foot setback adjacent to the alley. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X With respect to Use Permit No. 1818, motion was All Ayes made that Planning Commission make the followin, findings: 1. That the proposed residential development i consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed development will also eliminate an unsightly, abandoned automobile service station on the site. 2. That the proposed development will meet or exceed all of the required Residential Development Standards (i.e. floor area limi open space option, building height, parking etc.) when the interior living space within the proposed duplex on Building Site No. 2 is decreased to less than 3,000 sq. ft. 3. That the establishment of a 5 foot rear yar setback along the rear property line of the two parcels (and the proposed second floor projection to within 3 feet of the rear property line on Building Site No. 2) will not, under the circumstances of the particu Page 26. MINUTES 0. sa s e, INDEX 0 UP -1818 t, , d • la COMMISSIONERS 9QA 7( PO'S�t�4ySG�sRF City of Newport Beach. MINUTES February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of person 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 legisla- tive intent of Title 20 of this Code. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1818 will not under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of per- sons residing and working in the neighborhoc or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. • and approve Use Permit No. 1818, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans, floor plans, and elevations, except as note( in Condition No. 2. 2. That the interior living space on either parcel shall be less than 3,000 sq. ft. 3. That the second floor projection on Building Site No. 2 that encroaches to within 3 feet of the rear property line shall have a minimum ground clearance of 8'0 ". 4. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivi sion No. 539 be met. Motion X With respect to Resubdivision No. 539, motion wi All Ayes made that Planning Commission make the followin, findings: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. • 2. That the design or improvement of the pro- posed subdivision is consistent with appli- cable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for th type of development proposed. Page 27. s Is 1 u INC X FaMl~7 COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL - 4. That the site is physically suitable for th( proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause sub- stantial environmental damage or substantia" and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or th( habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cau! serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will nto conflict wit] an easements, acquired by the public at lar, for access through or use of, property with the proposed subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the propos subdivision will not result in or add to an, violation of existing requirements prescrib by a California Regional Water Quality Cont Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing wi Section 1300) of the Water Code. 9. That the requested exception for lot depths and areas is necessitated by the fact that existing requirements were adopted subseque to the original subdivision of the area, an that almost all of the building sites in th area do not conform to current standards. 10. That if the exception were denied, the peti tioner would be deprived of a substantial p perty right enjoyed by others in the area. 11. That the granting of this exception.is com- patible with the objectives of the regulati governing light, air and the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. and approve Resubdivision No. 539, subject to t following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all. improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. Page 28. MINUTES 1 i ei le, n 'd r ad ^ol th it i ro Dn! he •. INOEX • COMMISSIONERS \�o��p�s9 =� ;��� City of $ Fahruary 17 Newport Beach WIFM ROLL GALL 3. That a 5 foot radius corner cutoff at Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach for public street purposes. 4. That all vehicular access rights to Balboa Boulevard be dedicated to the City of Newpol Beach. 5. That the driveway approaches from Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street be closed up. 6. That the curb and gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street frontages. Commissioner Frederickson stepped down from the dais in connection with Item No. 12 and refrain . from deliberation due to a conflict of interest Request to establish a yacht club facility in tl C -O -Z District, and the acceptance of an offsit parking agreement for the required parking spac Location: Parcel 2 of Record of Survey 76/4 (Resubdivision No. 165) located a 2616 -A Newport Boulevard, on the southeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard and 28th Street in the Cannery Village area. Zone: C -O -Z Applicant: Voyagers Yacht Club, Newport Beac Owner: Mary J. Singer, Beverly Hills Staff advised of their recommendation that both the offsite parking lot adjacent to the subject • property and the offsite parking lot located on 28th Street be included in the Offsite Parking Agreement. Public hearing was opened in connection with th matter. Page 29. MINUTES t TJ ie as t I is INOEX Item #12 USE PERMIT NU.- 1821 APPROVED C N-DI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach MINUTES v ; m • , February 17, 1977 POLL CALL Scott Turpin appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Voyagers Yacht Club and advised th the two offsite parking lots have been included in the letter of agreement and concurred with 0 staff report and recommendations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make ti Ayes X X X X X following findings: Abstain X Absent X 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible wii the surrounding land uses in "Cannery Villal 2. Adequate offstreet parking spaces can be provided for the proposed development. 3. The required offstreet parking spaces on a separate lot from the building site is justifiable for the following reasons: a. The applicant has a long term (5 year) agreement for the use of the offsite parking lot. b. Said offsite parking lot is located directly east of the building site. c. Both parcels are under the same ownersh d. Parking on the subject lot will not cre undue traffic hazards in the surroundin area. 4. The proposed development will have no significant environmental impact. 5. The Police Department has indicated that th do not contemplate any problems. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1821 will no 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 neighbo hood or be detrimental or injurious to pro - perty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Page 30. INO6X at ie r th 1e �� • ip. qt ey t, r- • COMMISSIONERS City Of Newport Beach MINUTES • m 9li �� °gyp S� �� l< @ np p l N °t February 17, 1977 ROLL CALL and approve Use Permit No. 1821, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted in the conditio n as t nd d f ty INDEX COMMISSIONERS w o c F City. of t4oy February 17 Newport Beach 1977 MOLL CALL AMENDMENT ify N0. 487 to :h APPRO 9. That the work in the Newport Boulevard right of -way be done under an encroachment permit obtained fromthe Public Works Department. 10. That this approval shall be for a period of 5 years, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committ Commissioner Frederickson returned to the dais. Request to consider an amendment to portions of Districting Map Nos. 32 and 51 so as to reclass� from the R -2 -B District and the R -3 -B District 1 the OS Open Space District certain property whil has been designated as a site for a Senior Citizens Center and which is located on the westerly and easterly sides of Marguerite Avenui at 5th Avenue, in Corona del Mar. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with th matter and there being no one desiring to appea and.be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recomm All Ayes to the City Council the adoption of Amendment N, 487. Request to consider an amendment to Section 20. 090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which would provide that Modification Permits not use within 18 months from the date of approval shal be automatically revoked. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with th matter and there being no one desiring to appea and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Page 32. MINUTES •- 1 inioEx :ee Item #13 is r an D. Item X114 31 AMENDMENT N G 484 d 1 APPROVED • is r AMENDMENT ify N0. 487 to :h APPRO is r an D. Item X114 31 AMENDMENT N G 484 d 1 APPROVED • is r COMMISSIONERS City of rahruary 17 Newport Beach 1977 MOLL CALL Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recomme All Ayes to the City Council the adoption of Amendment No. 484. Request to consider an amendment to Section 20.6 060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to require a use permit for restaurant uses within the areas designated for commercial development on the Newport Shores Specific Area Plan. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with thi matter and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. lotion Commission X Motion was made that Planning recomme All Ayes to the City Council the adoption of Amendment No. 485. Request to consider amendments to Chapter 20.11 and Chapter 20.15 of the Newport Beach Municipa' _ Code relating to development standards in the R. District. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Motion X Planning Commission continued this matter to th All Ayes meeting of March 17, 1977. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 979, All Ayes setting a public hearing for March 17, 1977 to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newpor . Beach Municipal Code relative to the definition of the term "building site." Page 33. MINUTES nd 1, n 2 INOEX Item #15 AMENDMENT NO. T85 APPROVED Item #16 AMENDMENT NO 486 CONT. TO iC —7 COMMISSIONERS 3 A. City of Newport Beach February 17, 1977 POLL CALL Planning Commission discussed the possibility 01 holding a study session in the upstairs conferer room on either March 24th or March 31st, 1977, 1 discuss itemstoo lengthy for the afternoon study session and on which it is desirous to receive input from all of the Commissioners as well as any other interested persons. The date shall br confirmed as a subsequent meeting if such a study session is to be held. There being no further business, Planning Commission adjourned the meeting. Time: 12:10 A. M. WILLIAM AGEE, Sec etary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 34. MINUTES 0. INDEX Ice :o