Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/1980COMMISSIONERS Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. oz+ Date: February 21, 1980 I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL17TI I I I INDEX Present X x x Absent * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS James Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Glenna Gipe, Secretary * * Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe * * * . Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 1980 was post- poned to the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1980. Request to consider proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach �J Commissioner McLaughlin posed a question regard- : ing the Castaways site, to which Robert Lenard, !Advan-ce P.lannrng Administrator, replied that the areal comparison that should.be mage would -be the parcel net, less the church site,,j.less the 2 :1' slope, l,ess.park.s and streets andIthat the real difference now "should be the habitat areas, which is 1.4 acres in this case. i Ln response to a second question posed by Com- missioner McLaughlin, Mr. Lenard replied that the 37.8 acres should not be referred to, except -1- Item #1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80 -1 RESOLU- I N0. 1049 APPROVED COMMISSIONERS �Fflia MINUTES February 21, 1980 0 INDEX for informational purposes only. He explained that said figure was the property owner's esti- mate at the time of General Plan Amendment 79 -1 and that since then the Irvine Company has.pre- pared slope maps that show 2:1 slope areas and that the City has mapped the habitat areas. He added that this resulted in an entirely new set of numbers. He concluded that 1.4 acres is an approximation of what the difference would be. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas regarding the bluff setback', Mr. Lenard replied that the Bluff Preservation Ordinance does not reduce the buildable acreage calculation by 3.2 acres in this case, but would prohibit the location of structures. Mr. Lenard then commented that what would be changing with the adoption of General Plan Amend- ment 80 -1 would be that the habitat areas would be subtracted from the calculation of buildable • acreage. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Lenard replied that there is a parcel net of 70.4 acres and that the Sea'A Bland Park and Orange County Flood Control property are al- ready deleted from the site, as are the 2:1 slope areas of 7.8 acres. He added that the blufftop setback area of 2.9 acres is an area tha would be deleted with the passage of General Plan Amendment 80 -1. He stated that the 18 acres of habitat area would be deleted with the passage of General Plan Amendment 80 -1, and that the 14 acres of noise- impacted area similarly would be deleted. He concluded that the present parks and streets figure is 2.9 acres, or 15 %, so that the gross difference would be approximately 36 acres. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Lenard replied that noise impact area can be mitigated at the time of tract filing, but that in this particular situation,;this is air- . craft noise, which cannot be mitigated in the same way. He added that General Plan Amendment 79 -1 already prohibits the location of structures • in areas that are noise-impacted, so that it woul prohibit the location of structures in those areas. He concluded that under the existing Gen - -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 21, 1980 ' 5 � y x w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX eral Plan, the Irvine Company would be credited with the 14 acres of buildable acreage. The Public Hearing continued regarding this item and David Dmohowski, Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission andstated that the figures provided the staff during General Plan Amendment 79 -1 were based on the current definition of buildable acreage, or the net site area minus the streets, parks and slopes greater than 2:1 and that the difference between those figures and Mr. Lenard's figures are due by and large to the effects of General Plan Amendment 80 -1; that is, deleting the bl.uff setbacks, habi- tat areas and noise - impacted areas;. in response to a question posed by;Commiss,ioner Balalis, Mr. Dmohowski replied that the figure should begin with 70.4 acres parcel net and sub- tracting the Sea Island Park Dedication, this should bring the figure to 64.6 .ac!res, and that • the 2.9 acres figure for parks and. streets is too low a figure. 0 Mr. Lenard explained that shrinking the size of the remaining allowable development down from ap- proximately 40 acres to approximately 20 acres and subtracting 15,% for streets and parks, 15% is being subtracted from a much smaller area, so that there could be as much as 10 acres dif- ference. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Dmohowski replied that subtracting the bluff setback of 2.9 acres, the habitat areas at 18.0 acres, and the noise- impacted areas of 14.0 acres would bring the net difference between what they estimate as buildable under the cur- rent definition, which would change under General Plan Amendment 80 -1. Mr, Dmohowski stated his understanding that the 40.3 acres figure was arrived at by the parcel net acreage, minus the 2:1 slope of 7.8 acres, minus the estimate for the amount of streets and parks, assuming approximately 161 dwelling units, -3- MINUTES February 21, 1980 If I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX which figure was roughly 15% of the 40.3 acres figure. He added that they also 'subtracted the Sea Island Park, but did not subtract the flood control. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that there would be a difference of 18 acres, which leaves a general figure of approximately 22 acres or 23 acres of net buildable. Mr. Lenard explained the figures relating to New - porter North, stating that the original parcel net is 86 acres and the 2:1 slope is 9.2 acres, s that the 86 acres minus the 9.2 acres is equal to 76.8 acres., and 25% subtracted from this fi- gure for park dedication and streets gives a total of 57.6 acres. He added that the blufftop setback areas are approximately 2 acres, the habi tat acreage is 45 acres and the streets are only 4.5 acres. He concluded that the new difference • for Westbay is 24.2 acres. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that the figures could be made more realistic if they adopted the habitat areas, riparian vegetative assemblage and the conditional riparian areas alone. He expressed his feeling that the ripar- ian areas are the most important areas. .Mr. Lenard stated his understanding that Fish and Game's position was that they felt very strongly about the disturbed grassland areas, which are quite a large portion of the Newporter.North and Westbay sites. He added that the only areas they would not consider as sensitive habitat areas are the disturbed grasslands: on flat ter- rain. Mr. Dmohow ski stated that the onlyarea they woul consider as a bona fide riparian area would be the area known as the John Wayne Gulch of roughly between 6 acres and 10 acres. He Added that the area that Fish and Game has identified as a sig- nificant riparian area north of that near the terminus of Santa Barbara Drive is, in fact, an • unimproved drainage channel. He concluded that M 0 0 MINUTES February 21, 1980 City of Newport Beach it is their position that this area is not a significant environmental habitat, but is, in fact, an unimproved drainage channel. He con- cluded that it is their position that this.area is not a significant environmental !habitat area, but is, in fact, a drainage ditch that hasn't been very well maintained in recent years. Mr. Dmohowski again appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed their general feeling that there is no justification for amending the definition of "buildable acreage ", because the only intended purpose seems to be a further re- duction in residential density on those undevelop ed parcels. He stated that they had recently completed a 2 year general plan review, which re- su.lted in a reduction of the number of units al- lowed on those sites of between 70100% in some cases. He added that they do not feel that there has been any new information offered by anyone since the conclusion of the general plan review which would justify a further reduction of the number of units allowed either in terms of traf- fic impacts, environmental concerns or any other reasons. He concluded that regarding the loca- tion of structures, from a planning standpoint they do not hold any concerns with this, with one exception; that is, the proposal to prevent any grading or location of structures on what is now 2:1 slope would pose a particular difficulty in the Big Canyon area. He also concluded that there are small patches of 2:1 slopes scattered throughout the Big Canyon Area 10 Site. In response to a,question posed by Commissioner Beek, Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, responde that they would prefer to have the entrance into the residential- commercial site be opposite to Cliff Drive, so that there could be a traffic signal installed to let people in and out. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the JohnWayne Gulch area is, in fact, valuable riparian habitat; how- ever, they have made drainage improvements in an -5- COMMISSIONERS a aim February 21, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES 1 ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX unimproved area where they have provided on -site siltation control which now supports a variety of native vegetation through artificial irriga- tion runoff. He added that they did not feel they should be penalized in terms of buildable acreage for allowing that condition to exist He stated that at the time the site plan is pre- pared and the P -C zoning application comes before them, there would be a possibility for negotia- tion over the preservation of these areas in a manner satisfactory to the City. He concluded that regarding the concept of establishing den- sity by way of the 65 CNEL noise contours, they do not feel that it is an appropriate variable in determining the appropriate density for a given site. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that they feel that General Plan Amendment 79 -1 is sufficient and that they would like to see the • process continue that way and then when a plan is presented to the City either as a P -C District or as a map, at that point in time the City would have an opportunity to review and eliminate loca- tion of structures within the 65 CNEL or the ri- parian areas or the bluffs. He further stated hi understanding that at the same time, however, the want to maintain the total number of dwelling units. Mr. Dmohowski expressed their feeling that on the Newporter North site for example, roughly 212 dwelling units could be constructed, preserving .the riparian areas and the bluff setbacks and that the net density resulting from that would not be much greater than 4 dwelling units per acre.on a site -by -site basis. He concluded that they could not necessarily agree to a specific allocation of dwelling units and transference. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning pomnission adop Ayes x x x x a.policy that structures not be looated on slopes Absent * * greater than 2:1, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. M on x Motion was made that structures not be lo- AVs x x x x Gated in flood plain areas only on unde- Absent * veloped sites, upon which a Straw'Vote was am COMMISSIONERS w 0 gyp{ i N 7CDC Vl February 21, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES 1 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 1 ken. ames Hewicker, Planning Director, inquired re- arding the slopes greater than 2:1 in terms of he Planning Commission's policy on location of tructures, asking whether it was the intent of he Planning Commission that an existing slope f greater than 2:1 could not be mkigated or ould not be graded and therefore become build - ble. He further inquired whetherthis pertained o existing slopes or the situation at the site fter it is prepared for development. Commissioner McLaughlin responded that the City should be allowed to repair an erosion problem. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that if in its natural state the slope is greater than 2:1, then it is unbuildable and would imply a prohibition on regrading the slope.down to less • than 2:1. Commissioner Beek.expressed his feeling that the :1 slope requirement should include only those lopes greater than 25', to which the other com= issioners agreed. They then incorporated the 5' or more,figure into their definition. r1 LJ r. Dmohowski stated that they had no problems complying with the 2:1 slope requirement, except i'n the case of Big Canyon Site 10,.at which site they have a man -made slope of which roughly 25% ay be 2:1 or greater. He further stated that 'n order to accommodate development of this site, there would be a need for some gratling and some ecompacting of the existing material in order to tabilize the slope for development. He added hat as part of this project, there would be a estructuring of the existing material in order o stabilize the slope for development. He con - laded that also as a part of this project, there ould be a restructuring and a repairing.of an xisting slope structure near the entrance to Big anyon. He also concluded that the direction of he Planning Commission would prevent them from de I C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES 0 w February 2.1, 1980 3 � � ° X E D City of Newport Beach In3DOW� y po ROLL CALL 7= 1 INDEX reparing that slope and developin6 that parcel. e suggested that this policy apply to natural and forms or non - manufactured slopes. ommissioner Allen stated her understanding that he intent of the previous Motion basically took are of the Public Safety problem by intent. r. Hewicker stated his understanding that the in- ent was to permit a grading or repair of a slope reater than 2:1 if it is less than 25' in height, nd if it is greater than 25' in height, then it omes under the classification of a bluff, which annot be altered. he Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Hewicker. hey also agreed that this related only to un- eveloped sites. • C:ommissioner Thomas commented that he would like to see the Fish and Game maps incorporated by reference in talkin about the areas identified in the legend as: 1 riparian vegetative assem- blage,.2). disturbed grassland,. and!3) conditional riparian areas, as previously described. obert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, replied ihat to do this would be to designate certain teas, which would be outside the scope of a po- :Icy. He added that they would be making a find- ing of fact based upon maps that are contained ithin a staff report that may not be sufficient vidence to support that finding. In response to a question posed byCommissioner - alalis, Mr. Burnham stated that the more specific policy is made,.the less it becomes a policy, nd the closer it comes to a designation as some -hing that cannot be altered upon qqn an individual asis, given different considerations for dif= erent sites. ommissioner Bal.al.is stated his understanding that he definition of environmentally - Sensitive habi- at areas can be as broad or as specific as anyone • ishes to make it and the Planning Commission's U COMMISSIONERS K 0 a n 0 00 February 21, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 0 Motion 0 intention is to make it a little mdre specific ;han broad. 4r. Burnham advised that the further away they get From the specific description of the project, the less environmental documentation there will be oath respect to General Plan Amendment 80 -1, and ;o expand the definition of habitat areas or ;hange any of the definitions as they are pre - ;ently understood, the further away they would let from adequate environmental documentation, )ecause the environmental documentation prepared ias been based solely on the definiltion of the )roject presently before them. :ommissioner Balalis expressed hisconcern that a iroad definition would allow that about 4 years `rom now, additional items could be added to the environmentally = sensitive habitat areas, and the entire parcel could become unbuildable, to which :ommissioner Thomas agreed with his sentiments. lotion was made that the Planning Commission adopt an interpretive guideline tolstaff, instruct ing them that for determining policy on buildable icreage, they should consider environmentally sen- >itive habitat areas consisting oflriparian vege- ative assemblages. Mr. Burnham expressed his feeling that this does not solve the problem they have; that is, what future Planning Commissions are going to do with respect to what parcels they are considering in the future. =;red Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, explain aid that there would be no problem With p.repari.ng a niore specific environmental document, but that ti}be - environmental'docurientation be ore them is ijeared more to a general project * He added ghat regarding. - buildable acreage, hey geared it more ,in the direction that at tf e time the Planning Commission and /or City Council ^ieviews the P--C Deve- lopment P1an,.Tentative Map );,r Environmental Documentation on a particular I WT CCIMMISSIONERS MINUTES i d February 21, 1980 p� � I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX project, that consideration shall be given at that time, based on the evidence presented, to making these deletions. He concluded that at that time they would have well - documented infor- mation before them to make these determinations. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that they communicate to the City Council that it is not the intention of this Planning-Commission to delete all those areas on the maps from buildable acreage. She inquired whether they could accom- plish this end by not using those maps and by giving the City Council an approximation of their intent. Commissioner Balalis stated that hb could support leaving the units there if they can establish the guidelines in a more clear way. Mr. Burnham suggested letting their thoughts be • known to City Council as to the areas of emphasis He added that if they attempt to make more speci- fic a definition in the form of some interpretive guideline to be applied by staff, they would have a problem. He concluded that the Attorney Gener- al states that if they pass a resolution or ordi- nance that specifies that somethingg may happen in the future, they still must provide environ- mental documentation. Commissioner Beek then withdrew his Motion. Motion x Motion was made to include environmentally - sensi- Ayes x x tive habitat areas in the policy on buildable Noes x x acreage, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Absent Motion x Motion was .made to include coastal.. bluffs in the Ayes x policy on buildable acreage, upon which a Straw .Noes x Vote was taken. Absent Motion x Motion .was..made to include blufft4. setback areas Ayes x x x x i,n the ;poli.c.y on buildable acreage; upon which a Noes Vote was taken. Absent Motion x n was made to include riparian areas in the rVote /mss x y on buildable acreage, upon which a Straw S x x x was taken. Abs ent -10- COMMISSIONERS d g o ao W =r xm V 7 N X CD rll February 21, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the previous Motion. Ayes x x Noes Y Motion was made to include riparian areas in the Absent * * policy on buildable acreage, upon which a Straw Motion x vote was taken. Ayes x Noes K x N Mr. Lenard explained that with external mitiga- Absent * tion in the case of highway associated noise, it was possible to mitigate, but as in the case of aircraft noise, there is nothing that can be done to mitigate the outside noise. Mr. Hewicker stated that the specific wording is that noise impacted areas are area where outside mitigated noise levels are 65 CNELor greater. Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that were the Motion to pass, it would be in the land- owner's best interest to get the maximum number of dwelling units on his property by erecting a'. • concrete block wall as near as possible to the highway. Motion K Motion was made that residential noise impacted areas exceeding 65 CNEL with external mitigation be included.in the existing definition on build - able acreage, not affected by aircraft- associated noise.. Commissioner McLa,ughlin.then expressed her concer regarding the Westbay property, which upper area is already residential. Mr. Lenard suggested making a provision excluding airport associated noise. Mr. Hewicker explained that highway noise can be mitigated by construction of a wall or berm, but that it is very difficult, if not !impossible, to mitigate aircraft noise. Commissioner McLaughlin then withdrew her Motion. Motion Motion was made that residential noise impacted areas exceeding 65 CNEL with external mitigation . be included in the existing definition on build - able acreage. � -11- I C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES i February 21, 1980 0 000�n N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I INDEX Mr. Dmohowski suggested adding to Item No. 4, Page 3, except for 65 CNEL noise attribu- table to aircraft." He explained that in which case the Irvine Company wouldn't be penalized be- cause of the very extreme aircraft impact on the site. Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern that this would mean building walls all the way around the Upper Bay and that views would be destroyed. Commissioner Allen stated her undehstanding that current policy does not permit structures to be located in areas over 65 CNEL. She further state that she did not want to be confronted with the problem later on of it being to the landowner's advantage to build walls. She concluded that she would not support the Motion. -12- Commissioner Beek also spoke in opposition to the • Motion. Ayes K Straw Vote was then taken.on the Motion. Noes x x x Absent * * Motion was made that residential noise impacted Motion x areas exceeding 65 CNEL be included in the policy Ayes x on buildable acreage, upon which aStraw Vote was Noes K x taken. Absent Motion x MI btion. was made that flood plain areas be deleted Ayes x x XK f1rom the calculation of buildable acreage, upon Noes x wihich'a Straw Vote was taken. Absent Motion x Miption was made that the designation of the ±.2 Ayes x x A acres northwest of the intersection of Pacific Noes x Coast Highway and Dahlia Avenue be changed from Absent low- density residential to retail, nd service- commercial uses .(Chevron Service S ation site), ujpon which a Straw Vote was taken. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that the landowner had indicated that they would be opposed to recrea- tional and environmental open space zoning on this site. -12- a Div 0 C s x 0 CD a3 �� D 7A 7 N (D February 21, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Motion Ayes Noes Absent Ll x. Motion was made that the designation of the ap x xx proximately 25 acres east of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to Harbor View Hills (Freeway Reserva- tion -East) be changed from medium - density resi- dential to low- density residential; with a maxi- mum of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. I'n response to a questio Beek, Mr. Webb replied t they heard the condition site, indicated that as not being on the Master . consider requiring Hoag titular use permit to co Hospital property. He a it in the system, the ne with a use permit or a d site directly below it, connection of.the trail with Versailles to Coast Boulevard. n posed byCommissioner hat.the City Council, when s on the Hoag Hospital a result of this trail Plan, that they would not Hospital under that par - nstruct a section on Hoag dded that by incorporating xt time they come through evelopment'.of the CalTrans it would allow for the ahich would be provided Highway near Newport Commissioner Beek stated his preference that the segment of the bicycle trail along San Miguel Drive not cross MacArthur Boulevard. Motion x Motion was made to adopt the pr.opo�ed amendments to the-Master Plan of Bicycle Trails and delete the amendment pertaining to the segment of the bi cycle trail along San Miguel Drive!be.tween Mac- Arthur Boulevard "and Newport Center Drive East. is r. Webb. commented that the cul- dejsacing of San. iguel Drive was not a permanent cul -de -sac and as not a change in the Master Plan, but that San iguel is still a primary arterial:on the system. e added that it was only to be cul -de -sated until uch time as it was shown to be needed and that ven if the street is cul- de- sacedo a trail coming own to the cul -de -sac to MacArthur Boulevard ould have a traffic signal. He concluded that an Miguel Drive would come out tolat least Mac - rthur Boulevard and would proridefor a circula- ion of bicycle traffic into the center from the arbor View Homes area. He also concluded by ex- -13- C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES February 21, 1980 w 00 L> City of Newport Beach 1 INDEX Request to create three parcels of land for single Item #2 family residential development where one lot now exists, and the acceptance of an Environmental RESUB- Document. DIVISION A-0. 651 LOCATION: Lot 1, Block B, First Addition to Newport Heights, located at 2957 DENIED Cliff Drive and 2900 Avon Street, between Cliff Drive and Avon Street, southeasterly of Santa Ana Avenue in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Emma M. Cox, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Gary Siegel & Company, Tustin • The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item And Gary Siegel, Engineer for the Applicant, ap- -14- pressing his feeling that even though the road is cul- de- saced, it would still be a good place for a bicycle trail. Ayes K x Yx Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion. Absent Motion Motion was made that the Planning. Commission adopt Ayes x x x xx Resolution No. 1049, recommending to the City Absent * * Council the adoption-of General Plan Amendment 80 -1, and the acceptance of the Environmental Do- cument, and make the finding that although the proposed project.could have a significant impact on the environment, the mitigation: measures con_ tained in the Initial Study are adequate to insu.re that there will be no significant adverse environ- mental impacts. * * * The Planning: Commission recessed at 9:45 P.M. and • reconvened at 9:55 P.M. * * * Request to create three parcels of land for single Item #2 family residential development where one lot now exists, and the acceptance of an Environmental RESUB- Document. DIVISION A-0. 651 LOCATION: Lot 1, Block B, First Addition to Newport Heights, located at 2957 DENIED Cliff Drive and 2900 Avon Street, between Cliff Drive and Avon Street, southeasterly of Santa Ana Avenue in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Emma M. Cox, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Gary Siegel & Company, Tustin • The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item And Gary Siegel, Engineer for the Applicant, ap- -14- MINUTES February 21, 1980 W� RaoW> X pr o � City of Newaort Beach INDEX eared before the Planning Commission and stated heir concurrence with the conditions as stated n the Staff Report. n response to a question posed by Commissioner eek, Don.Webb, Assistant City Engineer, replied hat primarily Parcel 1 is not ser4ed by a public ewer at this time and has a septic tank, and that hey.wanted to provide access from that site down o the new sewer that would be con$tructed. Motion JJxJJ otion was made to make the findings as indicated Ayes x x x x in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and Deny Resub- Absent division No. 651. ZONE: C -1 PPLICANT: Morad Zahabian c/o Richard H. Dodd & Associates, Newport Beach OWNERS: Harry E. and Alice tN. Whitman, Cor- ona del Mar • ames Hewicker, Planning Director,commented that his item was approved by the Modifications Com- -15- Request to permit alterations and 4ddi.tions to an Item #3 existing nonconforming commercial building (Whit- man's Garage) with no offstreet parking spaces. MODIFI- he existing structure also encroaches 7' intoACTION he required 10' rear yard adjacent to an alley. NT.___U96 The proposed development includes the conversion f the garage space into retail area and three CONTINUED TO MARCH ffstreet parking spaces. In addition, proposed office space on the second floor encroaches 5' 6, 1980 into the required 10' rear yard. OCATION: Lot 3, Tract No. 1045, located at 3222 East Coast Highway on the northeasterly side of East Coast, Highway between Larkspur Avenue and Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 PPLICANT: Morad Zahabian c/o Richard H. Dodd & Associates, Newport Beach OWNERS: Harry E. and Alice tN. Whitman, Cor- ona del Mar • ames Hewicker, Planning Director,commented that his item was approved by the Modifications Com- -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m February 21, 1980 j 3 N X Z) Cit of �� � Y Newport Beach � P ROLL CALL III III I INDEX mittee, subject to certain findings and conditions as outlined in the Staff Report and was called up for review by the City Council andreferred to the Planning Commission. He added that if the appli- cant were to eliminate the existing non - conforming features of the building with respect to the loca- tion of structure on the property and to remodel it in such a fashion that any remodeling fully conformed to the required setback,;there would be no public hearing on this application at the Present time. In response to a question posed by'Commissioner Beek,.Wil.liam.Laycock, Current Planning Adminis- trator, replied that any building where one wall remains on the site would be considered a remodel- ed building and that in this particular case, both side walls will be remaining on the site. He ad- ded that there will be some remodeling of the fron and that the plan proposes to delete 2 feet from • the alley, but that it would be considered a re- 6deled building in accordance with the Building, Department. ommissioner Beek expressed his feeling that the erm "remodeling" should be revised. r. Hewicker commented that they have had instance n which an applicant has gained approval to re- odel and has determined that it is easier or heaper to demolish the structure and start over ban it is to repair or remodel the existing struc ure. ick Dodd,, Architect representing the Applicant, ppeared before the Planning Commission and stated is understanding that the Newport,Beach Municipal ode allows a continued use or change of use with - ut complying to the parking ordinance. He stated hat they were offering a way to provide addition - 1 parking. He explained that they are proposing o close the curb cut on Pacific C §ast Highway, hick would cause less traffic proolems, and allow or three additional parkino spaces. He.added tihat the proposed balcony is V further back from • the alley than the existing building. He conclude -16- COMMISSIONERS � v 0 c 3 0 X (D February 21, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX that they have taken an older building badly in need of a face -lift and revised it, adding.to the aesthetics and best interests of thie community. In response to a question posed byCommissioner Balalis, Mr. .Dodd replied that they are taking 2' off each of the.two side walls and.2' off the rea Nall, lifting the area up to create additional parking. arry Whitman, Owner, appeared before the Planning ommission and stated that he is approaching re- irement age and.would like to sell the property. e added that traffic -wise, he had'4 employees wit ars and only a dozen cars in the area and he ex- ressed his feeling that there would be less con - estion than there has ever been before. on Franklin, Property Owner East of Whitman's arage, appeared before the Planning Commission • and expressed his feeling that there is a lot of ongestion in the alley because of.the delivery trucks. 0 rew Conner, Conner Plumbing, appeared before the lanning Commission and expressed his concern re- arding access to his business duriing the time of onstruction. ommissioner Balalis explained that it is the ity's responsibility to insure that alleys re- ain clear during a time of construction. n response to a question posed by,Commissioner 11en, Mr. Conner replied that Mr.IWhitman had ma n arranger.ent with his parents to Irent a portion f their property for parking for his customers. rs. Conner, Conner Plumbing, appeal red before the fanning Commission and drew to th� attention of he Planning Commission the way in.which the pro - erty is situated in the corner of the alley, hating that it is difficult to ge� in and'out hen there are trucks in that alley. -17- C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES = February 21, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker stated his understanding of Mrs. Con - ner's concern as one that if the three parking spaces added to the back of this building encroach V into the required 10' alley setback, that this would leave only 3' for a truck maO ng a delivery to that new.building to park off the alley, and therefore, a strong possibility that it.would bloc the gated entrance to thei'r'proper%y. He added that the Modifications Committee has required that the spaces be set back 5' from theialley. In response to a question posed by'Commissioner B'alalis, Mr. Hewicker replied that the two alleys are 14' wide each. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approve Modification No. 2496, subject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report. • In response to a.question posed byCommissioner I alalis, Mr. Hewicker replied that both the first Ind second floors will be set backl5' from the :111ey. n response to a question posed by Commissioner homas, Mr. Hewicker replied that if this were not lassified as a remodel, but as a new building, hat 12 parking spaces would be required and that e would have to design it to meet:the current oning regulations with respect toisetbacks and arking, or else he would have to Seek modifica- ion requests for setbacks and variance requests o waive parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Laycock replied that the garage now en- roaches to within 3' of the alley and the reason he Modifications Committee approved a 5' setback ias because of, the existing trash enclosure on the a-idjoining property that encroaches'to within 3' of the property line. He added that �he general feel ina relative to the Conner property was that a de- Pivery truck would not utilize thel10' area behind tlhe garage because it would be very difficult to • get into that .10' area because of all the other . xistina obstructions on the adjoining property. OM COMMISSIONERS MINUTES w February 21, 1980 p3 w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I J= INDEX In response to a second question posed by Commis- sioner Allen, Mr. Conner replied that the tenants work together as far as trucks unloading for the businesses in the area. i In response to a question posed by ':Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hewicker expressed his feeling that the percentage of modification on this applica- tion would be over 50%. :ommissioner McLaughlin expressed her feeling that Ir. Whitman has the right to sell his.property. he also expressed her feeling that action should re taken on a Specific Area Plan for Corona del lar immediately. Commissioner Beek stated that he would not support the Motion, based on his feeling that this use has been justified on the basis of;the surrounding properties which encroach into thealley and that • the Planning Commission must start',somewhere to proceed to clean up Corona del Mar. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that the real question lies in whether or not an exist- ing .building can be remodeled to this extent. r. Hewicker stated that the applicant could move he parking spaces 5' further in so that they do of encroach into the alley, add his partial se- ond floor so that it doesn't encroach into the lley setback and not be required to provide more han one parking space. I'n response to a question posed by.Commissioner Balalis, Mr..Hewicker replied that :there is no definition of. "remodel" in the ordinance and that he was not aware of a definition for "remodel" in the Zoning "Code. Mr. Laycock stated that the only definition pro - ides that any non - conforming building may be re- aired, altered or remodeled without complying ,with the parking requirments. -19- MINUTES 0 x February 21., 1980 � � w o a o W W a x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, advised . that the County Assessor has a definition for 're- model" such that they can reassess.property when there is construction that goes onthat is in excess of a particular percentage, %so that the new tax rates would apply. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that Ag nda Item No. Ayes x x x 3„ Modification No. 2496, be conti ued to March Absent * * 6, 1980, before which time the sta f be directed to find a definition of the word "remodel" that is legally defensible and that the City can use as a 'standard. Request to permit alterations and a second floor room addition to an existing duplex that is pro - posed to be converted into a single family dwell- ing. The proposed development does not provide the required open space behind therequired set - backs as required by Code. Modifications to the Zoning Code are also requested, since an existing fireplace and chimney encroach to �itiin 1'6" of a side property line (where the Ordinance requires that fireplaces.and chimneys must be at least 2' from any side property line). The existing and proposed chimney- fireplace construction had a width of 9'9" ± on the second .floor (where the Ordinance permits a maximum 9' width). The pro- posed development also includes the addition of brick siding that encroaches 4" ± into the requir- ed 3' side yards. A third required offstreet parking space is also proposed. Said parking space has a width of 7'6" ± (where'the Code re- quires a minimum width of 9'). LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 55, Ocean Front Tract, located at 5507 Seashore Drive, on the southwesterly side of Seashore Drive between 55th Street and 56th Street in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 i 'PPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. RobertL. Moody, Los Angeles -20- Item #4 VARIANCE NO. 1073 VARIANCE WAS DE- NIED; M D I FICA NS WERE AP- PROVED CONDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS) K 0 _ d 7 o ap 7 N F N February 21, 1980 oil Ill ms MINUTES I ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I I INDEX OWNERS: Same as Applicants Commissioner Beek stated that he would from deliberation of this item, due to that he and the applicant had attended together. refrain the fact school The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Robert Moody, Applicant, appeared before the Planning 'Commission and stated his concurrence with the conditions.as indicated io the Staff Re- port. Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report and approve Variance No. 1073, sub- ject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report. . Commissioner Allen expressed her concern regarding the open space encroachment, stating that there is already a living room in the downstairs unit and expressed her feeling that if the Application only goes out 4', they would preserve the required I pen space and still have two livi6q rooms. Commissioner Balalis stated his support of someone converting a duplex into a single - family dwelling. Commissioner Allen commented that compared to the houses adjacent to it, it is substantial in size. She expressed her feeling that if their intent is to only require the open.space option in cases where duplexes are going to be remodeled and stay duplexes, then the ordinance should state that when a duplex is converted to a single- family dwelling, the open space option is waived as a benefit for so doing. Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that the rules regarding variances and open:space encroach- ments should be upheld. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that the Planning Com- s x x mission rake-'the findings -as indic ted in Exhibit. stain x "IC" of the Staff Report and. approv the modifica- Absent * tions for existing chimney - fireplace and proposed ii -21- Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes *ent r� LJ COMMISSIONERS rm WC� 3 0 X N CD V, * MINUTES February 21, 1980 itv of Newport Beach ( INDEX brick siding encroachments and narrow parking space, subject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "C" of the Staff Report. * * * ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDI- TIONAL. Motion was made to set for discusspon at the BUSINESS March 6, 1980 Study Session, R -3 zones and steep lots in Corona del Mar and to adop Resolution RESOLU- No. 1051 and set for public hearing on March 20, TION N0. 1980, Residential Development Standards in Corona 1051 del Mar. RESOLU- TION NO. 1052 Motion was made':to adopt Resolutioh No. 1052 and set for public hearing on April 10, 1980, Resi- dential Parking Standards. * * * There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:20 P.M.' Debra Allen, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -22-