Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/1981COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: March 5, 1981 7 Co o WQ+D Commissioner Allen referred to the Planning 5 y x W 3 City of Newport Beach ,. L CALL third paragraph, and stated that the minutes INDEX X X X X All Present. facilities addressed as one of the alternatives EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Bill Ward, Senior Planner Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES which MOTION CARRIED. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 1.981, was continued for two weeks, in that the Commission has not had sufficient time for their review. • IIIIIIII ,- •ffi Jl Commissioner Allen referred to the Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1981, Page 3, third paragraph, and stated that the minutes should reflect that she wanted the recreational facilities addressed as one of the alternatives in the EIR. She then referred to Page 13 of the February 5, 1981 Minutes, and stated that Mr. Otey had requested that this project be withdrawn if the item was not voted upon, or if they were required to do another traffic report. She stated that this should also be reflected in the minutes. Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Ayes X X X Regular Planning.Commission Meeting of February Abstain X 5, 1981, as revised by Commissioner Allen, which MOTION CARRIED. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 1.981, was continued for two weeks, in that the Commission has not had sufficient time for their review. • IIIIIIII ,- •ffi Jl COMMISSIONERSI March 5, 1981 0x o ' Ll D 1H HM X re, City of Newport Beach MINUTES ALL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Request to approve a Final Map to create one parcel of land so as to permit the construction of a residential condominium project on the property. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 818, First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located on:the northwesterly side of Superior Avenue, southwesterly of Placentia Avenue in the West Newport Triangle. ZONE:. Unclassified APPLICANT: George J. Heltzer Co. OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER:. James J. Brennan, Inc., Orange Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this continued item. He referred. to Cond.ition No. 3 of the related Use Permit No. 80 -32 P approved by the Orange County Planning Commission a.nd stated that they approved this project as ,a precise plan and, any relocation, alteration:or addition to any of the structures or uses approved by this action will nullify said approval. He stated that.should the project plans be revised without increasing the overall height, the City would honor the approval of the County:, However, he stated that there is specu- lation °as to how high:the building may.have to be raised; anywhere from 18 inches to 4 feet. He stated that for these.reasons, there is suf- ficient evidence that the City should not proceed with the approval of the final tract map at this time. He recommended that this item be removed from the Commission's calendar until such time as the drainage study is completed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the grade is changed, the building will not be the same height above the grade that existed under the County's approval. He stated that the -2- Item #1 March 5, 1981 MINUTES x City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX City measures the height of a building from the natural grade, or the grade approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Beek asked if the City could define and establish the grade for this project. Plan- ning Director Hewicker stated that the City coul establish grade on this project if this item is to be heard by the City, otherwise, the grade established by the County must be honored. Commissioner Beek stated that the 32 foot height limit of the district applies to the average height of the roof, so that the maximum height of the building could be 5 feet above that, or 37 feet. Staff. concurred. "Mr. Bill Laycock, Current.Planning Administrator, stated. that the plans show that the roof height is measured to the 'top of a pitched roof. However, the sub- mitted plans do not show an actual, natural grade on the elevation. • Commissioner Beek stated that a normal three - story building would fit into this height limit, unless there are unusual architectural features incorporated into the design of this project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that based upon a review of the staff report, there is not enough information to make a determination that the final map is in sub- stantial conformance with the tentative map. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Michael Weidman, architect, repre- senting the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Weidman stated that the 33 foot average height of the building above the natural grade, along with the maximum heich.tof an addi- tional 5.feet, which measures 38 feet above the natural grade, does not present a problem with the architectural design of the project as sub- mitted. He stated that the drainage study may affect the pad elevation by 12 inches to 18 inches, or possibly the pad elevations may not • IIIIIIII -3- COMMISSIONERS March 5 , 1981 MINUTES CALL 5.0 W D 3R In�y� G M Beach be required to be raised at all. Mr. Weidman requested the Commission's approval of this project. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr:.Wei.dman why they are anxious for the approval of the final map, in that a building permit can not be obtained until the problems are resolved. Mr. Weidman stated that they are requesting that the tract map be approved so that they may record the map. He stated that this project has gone through many lengthy, governmental review processes, and that they do not want further delays. He stated that before this property was acquired by the City, the project had been submitted for plan check at the County of Orange and was ready to be per- mitted. .Commissioner Balalis stated.that the Commission can not approve this tract map until all of the conditions of approval, are meta Commissioner Thomas stated that the drainage is a technical • issue, not.a.discretionary issue. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission is concerned that the pads be above the 100 -year flood level. Mr. Weidman stated that they are trying to accomplish.this and that the staff will have to approve the drainage study when it is completed. Mr. Weidman stated that the drainage study is underway and should be completed a week from tomorrow. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the tract map will automatically go before the City Council. Commissioner Thomas.suggested that the project meet.the 100 -year flood requirement prior to. going to the City Council. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the 100 -year floor provision requires the building to be altered, it may no longer meet the requirements of the use permit. Chairman Haidinger suggested that this item be removed from the calendar, until these problems are resolved. • I" I I I I I -4 INDEX March 5, 1981 MINUTES K 0 D y City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Allen stated that in a previous resolution to the City Council, the Planning Commission had stated that they do not want to hear final tract maps, as the Commission has no .discretion at this level. Planning Director stated that the Commission has the discretion to decide whether or not final tract maps are in substantial conformance with the tentative tract maps. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the Commissio deny the tract map, with the finding that Condi- tion No. 17, which requires the drainage study,. has not been complied with. He stated that in the interim, the applicant will have the oppor- tunity to resolve this problem before going to the City Council level. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Weidman stated that they have met with staff and have agreed to provide all of the • information necessary before the building permits are issued. Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff is concerned with Condition No. 17 which deals with the drainage study. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Weidman stated that the average height of the building will.be under 33 fee.t. Mr. . Weidman also stated that the necessary approval for the drainage plans on the project was sub- mitted and signed as being approved, by the County`s Drainage Engineer. Planning.Director Hewicker stated that the City's definition of a building pad is the lowest ele- vation of the building, which in this case, is the floor of.the parking garage. He also stated that there is a.difference of opinion at the County as to the definition of a building pad. He added that as near as the staff can determine, if.this project were to be built in accordance with the plans approved by the County, water would flow into the subterranean parking struc- tures. The water level may be 1 foot to 3 1/2 feet deep... • 11111111 -5- March 5, 1981 MINUTES w City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Weidman stated that the County's restriction on the use permit is for a 100 -year flood. He stated that the City's standard.is for a 25 -year flood situation. Mr. Webb, Assistant .City Engine r, concurred with Mr. Weidman, but stated.that.this particular project is located in a sump area and needs to be studied very carefully to ensure that there will be no flooding. Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Weidman to respond to Commissioner Balalis's.suggestion for denial. Mr. Weidman stated that they would not be agree- able to a denial, in that.it carries a negative connotation. Commissioner Beek stated that if the applicant is to be required to raise the ground level, the Commission should then establish a new arade also, so that the grade can be measured from the new ground level. Vion X Motion was.made that the Planning Commission determine, that the grade on this site is the height in which the pads must be raised in order to meet the flood requirement. Commissioner McLaughlin asked legal counsel if the Commission has such discretion on this matter Mr. Burnham stated that this would be considered as a separate action of the Commission. He state that establishing grade would remove the staff's concerns. He stated that approving the map without establishing the height of the pads, leads to the possibility of the building ex- ceeding -the height limit. Amendment X Chairman Hai.dinger suggested an amendment to the motion to include a finding that the grade is the new grade to meet the flood requirement. Planning Director Hewicker explained to the Commission the definition of the term grade. He stated that if the Commission establishes grade at that point which is required to elevate the building pads above the 100 -year floor level,. the building could then be built per the County's • use permit approval. -5- COMMISSIONERS March 5, 1981 MINUTES a� 0 City of New ort Beach L CALL INDEX Acceptance X Commissioner Beek accepted the amendment to his motion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Burnham stated that a finding of this nature would support another finding that the final map is .insubstantial conformance with the tentative map. Mrs, Louise Greeley, representing the Newport Crest Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Commission.; Mrs. Greeley stated that it is very distressing to consider exceeding the height limitation in this area. She stated that this would be an unfortunate precedent to establish. Commissioner Beek stated that it is only fair to measure the height from where the 'ground level is required to be. He stated that this would not be exceeding the height limit. • Chairman Haidinger stated that there are enough uncertainties involved in this project and that he will be voting against the motion. Commis - sioner McLaughlin concurred and stated that she would like to make a decision when the drainage study is completed. Substitute Substitute motion was made to continue this item Motion for two weeks, directing the applicant to complet Ayes X X the drainage study before the next meeting, which Noes X- X MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to modify the Agenda, to hear All Ayes X X X X X Item No. 2, Use Permit.No. 1977, as the last item on the regular agenda, which MOTION CARRIED. -7- Mr. Webb,..Assistant City Engineer, requested Item #2 that Item No. 2, Use Permit No. 1977, be heard later in the agenda, so that he may.confer with To be the .Assistant City Attorney and the applicant's heard attorney. i;% t nn Motion X Motion was made to modify the Agenda, to hear All Ayes X X X X X Item No. 2, Use Permit.No. 1977, as the last item on the regular agenda, which MOTION CARRIED. -7- AMISSIONERS March 5, 1981 MINUTES � x , 5 0 CD D In N City of Newport Beach INDEX Request to create one parcel of land where Item three lots presently exist so as to permit the 1 111 construction of a commercial office building in the M -1 -A . .District. „r�iin LOCATION:. Lots 14, 15 and 16-of Tract No. 3201 located at 4000 -4020 Campus Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive between Quail Street and Dove Street across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE:- M -1 -A APPLICANT: Pacesetter Homes, Inc. Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company ENGINEER: Church Engineering, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Steve Strauss, representing Pacesetter Homes, Inc., appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this resubdivision. Motion llllll Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision.No. All Ayes x x x x x 679 with the findings and.conditions of Exhibit "A" as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied.with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: • 1. That a parcel map be filed. -8- COMMISSIONERS March 5, 1981 MINUTES Of Beach RRMLLL CALL I III III I I INDEX 0 • I I I I I I 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all conditions of approval of the Traffic Study prepared in conjunction with the development of this site shall be met. 4. That approximately 80 sq. ft. of deteriorated P.C.C. sidewalk be reconstructed along Campus Drive. 5. That the on -site parking lay -out be approved .by the Public. Works Department. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completing the required public improvements. Request to establish a private, off - street commercial parking lot in the R -2 District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested inasmuch as a landscape planter encroaches to the rear property line (where the Ordinance does Item #4 USE PERMIT N0. 1976 not permit any obstruction within five (5) feet . of the rear property line adjacent to a fourteen (14) foot wide alley). DENIED LOCATION:. Lot 15, Block I of Tract 323, located at.410 Jasmine Avenue on the easterly side of Jasmine Avenue between.East Coast Highway and Bay- side Drive in Corona del Mar. ZONE:. R -2 APPLICANT: Richard K. Natland, Newport Beach OWNER: Jeff Schulein, Corona del Mar • II II II II -9- t 9 n S C) �L. pxp,, CALL March 5, 1981 Z t Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that this application is a request for additional parking, not required parking. MINUTES Commissioner Beek stated that the zoning in this case is not consistent with the General Plan. Planning Director Hewicker explained the history of the zoning in this area. He stated that the property could be rezoned to a commercial distric or the Commission.can retain their discretionary control on the property by not changing.:the existing residential designation. Commi- ssioner Balalis stated that it will be difficult to determine if this parking is justi- fied, since the Specific Area Plan for Corona del Mar has not yet been completed. He.also stated that this request will be encroaching into a residential area. Commissioner McLaughlin concurred. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Richard Natland, the.applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Natland stated that the Corona del Mar Chamber of Com- merce has approved this request, but:that he had not received as yet, a formal letter of approval. Commissioner Allen told Mr. Natland that the Commission appreciates the offer for additional parking. However., she stated that this property may not be the proper.location for the parking. She suggested that Mr. Natland offer his input when the'Specific Area Plan for Corona is heard, by the Commission. Chairman Haidinger asked why this additional parking is being requested. Mr. Natland stated that Crown' Hardware is desirous of expanding their parking. Mr. David Marrero, resident of 408 Jasmine Avenue appeared before the Commission in opposition to'. this request. Mr. Marrero stated that the 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1+ -10- INDEX March 5, 1981 MNJTES x 0 3 City of Newport Beach majority of the residents in the area are opposed to this request. He stated that the parking lot will encroach upon an existing 'R -2 development.. He stated that there.is adequate parking in.the area; in that there is a public parking lot which is located less than one block away from the hardware store. He stated that he has suggested to the hardware store that their employees park in the public lot, thereby leaving the spaces open on the street for the customers. He stated that approval of this parking lot will create a detriment to the neighborhood with the additional traffic, noise and nighttime lighting it will be generating. He also stated. that the residents are concerned with the hours of operation and delivery schedules involved with this parki.ng lot for the hardware store, as these were not specified in the conditions for approval of this request. Commissioner Allen stated that citizen input is needed in the Specific Area Plan.for Corona del Mar and requested. that Mr. Marrero and his neighbors participate. She stated that the entire commercial str.i:p is being analyzed and. that citzen input, particularly from residents in the buffer zone is needed. Ms. Joan Barry, resident of 1039 Baja Street, Laguna Beach, appeared before the Commission in opposition to this request. Ms. Barry stated that the adjacent R -2 properties will become . devalued because.of the parking lot. She also stated that the hardware store may decide to expand its facility,, once they have obtained the additional parking. Mr. Ken Wirgler,.property owner of 413 Jasmine Avenue, appeared in opposition to this request. Mr. Wirgler stated that it is true that more parking is needed in the Corona del Mar Area, but stated that a parking lot encroaching into an R -2 development is not the answer. He stated that the parking lot will create a detriment to the surrounding residential properties. • -11- COMMISSIONERS March 5, 1981 o x 1= 0 0 H City of Newport Beach L CALL Motion X Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 1976, subject to the findings of Exhibit "B ". MINUTES Commissioner Balalis stated that a major concern in the Corona del Mar area is retaining the neighborhood /service commercial uses -and parking for the community. He stated that utilizing lots adjacent to the business district for additional parking needs is a solution to the problem. He stated that the City parking lots are not neces- sarily the answer to the problem. He suggested that this item be continued until the parking situation can be studied further. Ayes 1XIX11 X Commissioner McLaughlin's motion for denial o€ Noes Use Permit No. 1976, subject to the findings of Exhibit "B" as follows, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: • 1. That the proposed parking lot use will be incompatible with.the adjacent residential neighborhood due to the increased noise and traffic associated with a commercial parking lot on the site. 2. That the proposed project represents a gradual encroachment of commercially related activities into an established residential area. 3. That the establishment of a landscape planter in the required five foot alley setback will, under the circumstances of the particular cas -be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or.the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modi- fication is not consistent with the legisla- tive intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code • I I I I I I I 1 -12- INDEX x (C) 3 � 7 N X (A March 5, 1981 on Beach MINUTES INDEX 4. That approval of Use Permit No. 1976 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neigh b.orhood and be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements fin the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. Commissioner Beek suggested that the zoning on this property be brought.into conformance with the General Plan. Chairman Haidinger stated that this would require a General Plan Amendment. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Com- mission would have to initiate a hearing to change the General.Plan..designation on this property. Chairman Haidinger requested staff to bring this item back to the Commission for their determination. Review of.the conditions attached to the approval Item #5 of Use Permit.No. 1857 which permitted the con- struction of the Bank of Newport headquarters' USE PER complex, A ncluding the drive -up teller facility, NO. 185 flag poles and residential condominium units. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 152 -28, 29 (Resubdivision No. 659), lo- cated at 2101 East Coast Highway, on the southerly side of East Coast Highway, westerly of Avocado Avenue,. adjacent to Ir- vine Terrace (Bank of Newport Headquarters' Complex). ZONE: C -1 OWNER: Bank of Newport, Newport Beach REVIEW INITIATED BY: The Planning Commission • 11111111 -13- edin 9 n = d o CDR N w CALL March 5, 1981 won � • 1 MINUTES Chairman Haidinger and Commissioner Balalis stated that they would not be participating in this item, nor casting any votes, due to possible conflicts of interest. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the staff report on this discussion item and presented background information. He stated that there appears to be three areas of concern from the residents of Irvine Terrace. First, the resi- dents have indicated that the existing wall along the Zahma Drive side of the Bank site should be raised to six feet from.grade bn the Bank side to protect their privacy from the commercial development. He stated that the.Bank has placed additional landscaping.in front of the wall to address these concerns. He stated that perhaps. the Bank should introduce additional landscaping to the west side of the wall to provide additiona privacy to the residents. • Secondly, Planning.Director Hewicker stated that the wall sign on the west side of the building is of concern to the residents. He stated that there is no condition of approval on the use permit that prohibits this .type of sign for a C -1 zone. He stated that the sign ordinance does restrict the amount of illumination for nighttime brightness. However, he stated that this parti- cular standard is difficult to enforce. He stated that the Bank.has made an effort to reduce the level of brightness in the sign and have also put the siqn on a timer, to be turned off at 7:30 D.M. 0 Third, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the lighting in the parking lot is a problem for the residents. He stated that he had personally approved the plans for the lighting in the parkin lot which included the fixtures and the screens for the perimeter of the site. He stated that he must agree with the residents of the area that the lighting in the parking lot is most offensive. He stated that the Bank has installed -14- ,MMISSIDNERSI March 5, 1981 MINUTES w City of Newport Beach CALL I I I 1 II 1 1 1 1 INDEX test panels of clear bronze and white opaque glass in one of the lights, to reduce the lighting. He stated that the Bank has decided to install the white opaque glass in the lighting fixtures to remedy this problem. In addition, the Bank has decided to install obscure black glass on the sides of the fixtures adjacent to Irvine Terrace and to the back of the property. He added that this has not been done, as yet. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if there can not be an agreement reached by the City and the Bank of Newport, the Planning Commission has the discretion to make the finding.that the Bank is not adhering to the conditions of approva of the use permit. The Commission could then request that the Use permit.be set for public hearing to consider revocation of same. The discussion opened in.connection with this item and Mr. Paul Ruffing, the architect of the building, appeared before the Commission. Mr. • Ruffing stated that the glass had been cut and is ready to be installed into the lighting fixtures, but that the rain this week has delayed the in- stallation. He stated that the installation of the opaque glass should reduce the glare of the lighting substantially. He stated that the Bank has reduced the lighting from a 175 watt lamp to a 100 watt lamp, which is a significant de- crease. He stated that the lights in the parking lot are on a time clock and after a certain hour, the majority of the lights are turned off, and only the security lights remain on.. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Ruffing stated that he did not know if a criteria existed for the number of security lights to be utilized around a bank. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Ruffing stated that he is not pre- pared this evening to address the issue of raising the height of the wall. • 11111111 -15- March 5, 1981 MINUTES o x a City of Newport Beach INDEX Mrs. Eleanor Forsyth, property owner adjacent to the Bank of Newport, appeared before the Commis- sion in opposition to the use permit. Mrs. Forsyth stated that the Bank of Newport is not in compliance with Use Permit No. 1857 and its obligations to the community of Newport Beach. She stated that the parking lot lighting should be redesigned, as the brilliant intensity and excessive numbers of these lights show no concern for the adjacent residential uses. She stated that the lighting was not designed to conform with the Use Permit direction that the lighting shall be directed away from residential uses. She stated that the transluscent glass coverings have yet to be installed and evaluated.. Mrs. Forsyth stated that the 200 sq. ft. in- ternally lighted sign directly facing the resi- dential.area should be removed, not just turned off. She stated that the sign did not appear on the plan originally submitted and was subsequentl • approved under a.general C -1 ordinance without review by the affected citizens, Commission or Council .members. She stated that the lights from an internally lighted sign.ca.n in no way be directed away from the residential uses as re quired in the use permit. She stated that turning off.the sign light alone is not adqquate because the.visual impact of a large sign in a residential area is detrimental to property values and the personal well being of the resi- dents . Mrs. Forsyth stated that the internal lighting of unused offices.should be softened by drapes or turned off. She stated that these lights are frequently on late at night and that their sources are high and directly visible. Mrs. Forsyth stated that the height of the wall adjacent to Irvine Terrace has been inadequate - from'its inception. She stated that the resi- dents'original request for a six foot wall was rejected on the grounds of aesthetic appearance, yet the Bank built a 7 1/2 foot wall on the other • 11111111 1 -16- CALL uvu»i iv�n� March 5,1981 � n In y. City of Newport Beach MINUTES side of the parking lot where they desired visual shielding. She also stated that the residents requested that the.wrought iron openings be changed to a solid visual and accoustical barrier She stated that this was not done, but that the additional recent pl.antings,.as the result of the Community Association's requests, have been helpful. Mrs. Forsyth stated that the residents of Irvine Terrace felt that the Bank would be a reasonable and welcome neighbor to their community. She stated that the conditions under which the Bank of Newport.was permitted to build,.should now be enforced and that the Bank of Newport live up to its community responsibilities. Commissioner Thomas concurred with Mrs. Forsyth's comments regarding the lighting and .asked for her comments as to how the.Commission should enforce this, or.if the Commission should start . proceedings to revoke the use permit. Mrs. Forsyth stated that other developments have been able to design their lighting so as to not be objectionable to the surrounding residents, by designing the lights low with caps over them. She stated that the Bank sign is highly obnoxious in the residential area. Commissioner Thomas suggested that perhaps the Bank of Newport needs to renegotiate these improvements through the use permit process. Commissioner. Beek commended Mrs. Forsyth for her perseverance. He.asked Mrs. Forsyth if it is her desire to have a 1. to 1/2 foot solid barrier installed on the top of the existing wall. Mrs. Forsyth stated that they are requesting a solid wall because the parking lot is a public area. She stated that her home activities are entirely visible and on display to the general public. • I I I� I I I I -17- COMMISSI NERS March 5, 1981 MINUTES N y City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek asked Mrs. Forsyth if it would be possible for the residents of the area and th.e Bank of Newport.to reach an agreement. Mrs. Forsyth stated that this would depend on the Bank as the Bank has shown no willingness to talk about removing the sign. Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mrs. Forsyth if there have been any efforts by the Bank of Newpor since November 19, 1980, to comply with the re- quests of the homeowners. Mrs. Forsyth stated that the Bank has dimmed the parking lot lights, which.has been helpful. .In response to a question.posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the negotiation on the wall height was originally between the homeowner's association and the Bank, which.would raise the wall from 4 feet to 5 feet. He stated that the wall was built at 4 1/2 feet. He added that from his • own observation, the wall should be raised to 6 feet to provide the residents with the pro- tection that they are requesting. He stated that there is no condition included in the approved use permit to require that this be done. He also stated that there is no condition in the use permit for the illumination of the sign. Mr. Elmer Cote, attorney representing the resi- dents of Irvi.ne Terrace,.appeared before the Commission. Mr..Cote stated that failure by the Bank of Newport to comply with the conditions of the use permit forms the basis for the home- owners complaints. He stated that the solutions that have been requested by the homeowners would not cause a detriment to the Bank or its opera- tions; and would be at a.very little expense. He stated that the extension to the wall could be accomplished with very little difficulty. He stated that the security needs could dictate the requirements for the parking lot lighting in the evening, along with additional shielding to direct the light away from the residential area. He stated that there will have to be • I I I I l I I( -18- AMISS ONERS March 5, 1981 MINUTES x D y City of Newport Beach INDEX compromises made on the part of the Bank, regard- ing the sign. He also stated that the homeowners efforts to resolve these problems with the'Bank have failed. Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Cote if the actual, physical appearance of the sign is 'a serious problem, or if the removal of the illumination in the sign would resolve the concern. Mr. Cote stated that the sign is facing Chubasco Way and that the mere physical presence of the sign is detrimental to the residential neighborhood. He questioned the potential, value of the sign, as he stated that it is not visible from Pacific Coast Highway because of the many trees. He added that the Bank would not suffer a great advertising detriment in the.removal of the sign, as compared to the benefits that would be de- rived 'by the residents of the area by its removal Mr. Bill East, resident of Irvine Terrace, ap- • peared before the Commission. Mr. East stated that the sign is only visible from Chubasco Drive and that the .Bank could receive only minima °l commercial value from the sign. He stated that the sign is offensive to the resi- dents during the day and in the evening. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Ruffing stated that the Bank has met, to the letter, the conditions of the use permit. He stated that they had submitted a lighting plan.to the City, which received approval He also stated that the signs are in conformance with the City Codes. He stated that there was no condition for the height of the walls placed in the use permit. He suggested that a meeting be arranged between the Bank of Newport and the staff to discuss the grievances mentioned tonight. Commissioner Beek stated that in.order to get the Bank of Newport's attention, the Commission should schedule a hearing for revocation of the use permit for the second meeting in April. He IIIIII11 -19- 1MN\DWJNt"I March 5, 1981 _J t w City of Newport Beach MINUTES stated that this will give all parties concerned, ample time to negotiate and resolve these concern Motion 'X' Motion was made to set the revocation of Use Ayes X X X X Permit No. 1857 for April 23, 1981, which MOTION Abstain X CARRIED. Request to permit the expansion of an existing. restaurant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages (formerly Chuck's Steak House). A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested since the proposed and existing development en- croaches into the required front yard setback along West Coast Highway. The proposal also includes a modification from the required parking standards so as to allow tandem spaces. • LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at.2332 West Coast Highway on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan.Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: . Dave Alderman, Malibu OWNER: Sadie M. Stegmann, Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the following, additional.F.indings of Approval and Revised Condition-No. 12 are suggested by the City Attorney's office: FTNDTN99- 6. That the proposed project will generate a significant amount of vehicle trips on Coast Highway in the vicinity of the restaurant. . I I I I I I -20- INDEX APPROVED March 5, 1981 MINUTES 1? cl F I i I I S City of Newport Beach L CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX 7. That the vehicle trips and traffic gener- ated by the project is sufficient to warrant the condition of approval that the applicant dedicate 12 feet of right - of -way to accommodate the..widening of Coast.H,ighway in the vicinity of the restaurant. REUSED CONDITION NO. 12: 12. Prior to.the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide for the dedi- cation of 12 feet of right -of -way along the southerly boundary of the property to allow for widening of West Coast Highway.. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the revised Condition No. 12 states that the applicant shall provide for the dedi- cation, as opposed to actually dedicating same. • He stated that the applicant in this case, is not the owner of the property. 0 Planning Director Hewicker stated that the following additional Conditions of Approval are recommended by the Planning Department: CONDITIONS: 15. That a .landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared and implemented for the subject project in accordance with the requirements of the Mariners' Mile Specific Area plan and shall be perman- ently maintained. 16. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Commission. Planning Director Hewicker stated that Condition Nos. 15 and 16 are designed to meet the require- ments of the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan. -21- n N x f/l 7 • 0 March 5, 1981 WNUTES of Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection With this item and Mr. Paul Shoop, the.attorney representin the applicant, appeared before the Commission.. Mr. Shoop stated that the City is asking for dedication of property that his client does not own. He stated that the applicant will be in= vesting one -half of a million dollars into this - development which will be providing jobs for people and revenue to the City. He stated that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that private property will not be taken for public use without just compensation. He stated that private enterprises are being destroyed when they become so regulated. He stated that the applicant is willing to dedicate to the City the tenants interest in the development. Mr. Shoop suggested that the revised Condition No. 12 include the wording "dedication of the applicant's interest in the 12 feet of right -of- way. . ." He stated that when Coast Highway is widened, there will be only 12 feet of fronta on this property that the City will have to buy, because the applicant would have already dedi- cated to the City his interest in the building improvements. Mr. Shoop referred to the additional findings regarding the traffic generation and stated that they are only proposing an additional 12 percent of square footage to an existing development. He stated that this proposed expansion will not add 5 to 7 percent of the traffic on Coast High- way. He stated that an incremental increase of only 12 percent in square footage will only add 12 percent of the 5 percent increase in traffic generation. Mr. Shoop referred to Condition No. 2 of the staff report and asked for clarification. Plan - ning Director Hewicker stated that this condition would not allow the portion of the structure under the.porch within the 12 feet of right -of- way to be dedicated to be enclosed. Mr. Shoop asked if the rational for this is to avoid paying more money when Coast Highway is widened. Mr. 6urnham stated that this was correct. Mr. Shoop stated -22- ua•:, x w fm/l 7c W� 3 March 5, 1981 z t Beach MINUTES the City would gain more in sales tax from an additional table in the restaurant, than it would cost for the City to condemn it. He stated that not being allowed to build in this portion diminishes the applicants ability to serve the customers. Mr. Shoop requested that Condition Nos. 2 and 13 be deleted and that Revised Condition No. 12 indicate the'. "applicant's interest" in the dedication. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Planning Director Hewicker stated that a use permit woul.d not be required for an existing restaurant if the applicant were not proposing to expand the net public area or its operational characteristics. However, he stated that the applicant in this case is proposing to expand the net public area. He also stated that staff questions as to whether or not the former • restaurant use on the site has been abandoned. He stated that the applicant has completely gutted the interior of the building and that they have not maintained a business license with the City. Mr. Shoop stated that there are no architectural plans on record for this building, therefore, the applicant had no understanding of its structural members. In anticipation of re- modeling the building, the applicant had the interior.wall coverings removed. He stated that at this point, the owner filed a lawsuit against the applicant. He stated that approval of this use permit will allow the applicant to begin with the remodeling. He added that the archi- tect of the project is also present.to answer any of the Commission's questions. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Webb, Assisant City.fngineer, stated that right -of -way dedications adjacent to Master P.l.annedarterial streets are recommended by the Public Works Department-in situations such as -23- INDEX �5,ppoi (COR J N N x'f March 5, 1981 071 Mr MINUTES INDEX this as'well as resubdivisions. Mr. Burnham stated that a finding would still have to made that the project the applicant is proposing, creates a need for the dedication. Motion X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1977 with the findings and conditions as contained in the original staff report, Exhibit "A" and as modified by the staff this evening. Amendment Amendment to the motion was made that the re- vised Condition No. 12 be modified to read, "12) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 12 feet of right -of -way along the southerly boundary of the property shall be dedicated to the City to allow for the widening of West Coast Highway. He stated that in this way, the con- dition does not indicate who will be dedicating the right -of -way. • Commissioner Balalis asked what the applicant can do, in the event that the property owner is not willing to give or sell the dedication to the City. Chairman Haidinger stated that the applicant can rebuild the restaurant using the same dimensions as was used in the prior resta- urant use. Commissioner Balalis stated that he is not op- posed to the City obtaining.dedications but, stated that the applicant is only proposing an additional 12 percent of square footage to an existing building. Commissioner Cokas concurred wi.th Commissioner Balalis's statements and stated that.the applicant does not even own the 12 feet of dedi cation that is being required. Commissioner.Allen referred.to Condition No. and stated that the applicant should not be able to make improvements in the West Coast Highway right -of -way. 0 11111111 -24- o D March, 5,. 1981 Of Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that the City should be firm as to requiring the dedication. Mr. Shoop stated that the property owner does not care that the property will be improved, and therefore, does not care about the dedication. Commissioner McLaughlin asked for clarification as to what will occur if the revised Condition No.'12 is deleted. Chairman Haidinger stated that the City would then not own the 12 feet of right -of -way and would have to condemn and pay the owner for the rights to that portion. Mr. Webb stated that if the dedication is not to be required, he.recommended that all of the rights of the applicant be dedicated d; as was offered by Mr. Shoop. Mr. Shoop clarified and stated that Condition No..12 should then read, "That the applicants interest in the 12 feet of additional right -of -way be dedicated for street and highway purposes. ." In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balali -s, Mr. Burnham stated that it would not be necessary to include a condition that the appli- cant will not oppose the widening of West Coast Highway. Mr. Burnham stated that it his under- standing that the applicant is giving all of his interest in the lease hold and improvements that may be located in the 12 feet. Amendment X Commissioner McLaughlin-stated that she would like to amend Condition No. 12 as stated by Commissioner Balalis. Chairman Haidinger stated that this would now not require the dedication of the right -of -way, but only the.interest that the applicant has in the right -of -way. Commissioner Cokas asked if this 'change would affect the additional Finding No. 7. Mr. Burn- ham stated that Finding Nos. 6 and 7 are, in effect, contingent upon a determination that the restaurant use was abandoned. Chairman Haidinger asked if Finding No. 7 can be based upon the expansion of the restaurant. Mr. Burnham concurred, but stated that it could • only be made by a lesser degree. Chairman -25- s �(mp� 3 � N 7C fli March 5, 1981 W Beach MINUTES FWL CALL INDEX Haidinger stated that Finding No. 7 should inr clude the wording, "the applicant dedicate its interest in the 12 feet. . ." Commissioner Beek stated that he did not approve of the last amendment to Condition No. 12 and stated that the dedication should be required. Amendment JJ X Amendment to the motion.was made to approve Ayes X X. Use Permit No, 1977 as originally stated, ex- Noes X X X eluding the last amendment relating to Condition Abstain X No. 12, which was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. All Ayes X X 11 Commissioner McLaughlin's amended motion for approval of Use Permit No. 1977 was now voted 1111 11 on, which MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Shoop referred to Condition No. 13 and stated • that this should have been deleted or revised, in that Condition No. 12 has been revised. Mr. Burnham concurred and stated that since the property owner is not being required to dedi- cate the 12 feet, the lessee would not have the.power to remove the bulding as required by Condition No. 13. Mr. Burnham suggested that Condition No. 13 be deleted. Motion JJJJ X Motion was made to reconsider Use Permit No. Ayes X X X X 1977, which MOTION CARRIED.' Noes Motion X Motion was made for the adoption of Use Permit All Ayes X X X X No. 1977 as previously approved, with the dele- tion of Condition No. 13, which MOTION CARRIED as follows: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses.. IIIIIIII -26 March 5, 1981 MINUTES N w City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX 2. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems.. 3. The project will not have any significant, environmental impact: 4. That the establishment, maintenance, or ' operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to pro- perty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and furthe that the proposed modification for the tandem parking spaces with valet service is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1977 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 neighbor- hood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. 6. That the proposed project will generate a significant amount.of vehicle trips on Coast Highway in the vicinity of the restaurant. 7. That the vehicle trips and traffic generated by the project is sufficient to warrant the condition of approval that the applicant dedicate its i.nterest in the 12 feet of right -of -way to .accommodate the widening of Coast Highway in the vicinity of the restaurant. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be.in substantial • conformance with the approved plans, except as noted below. -27- o CALL March 5, 1981 rO11 t Beach 2. That the proposed restaurant addition shall maintain a minimum 12 foot setback from the existing right -of -way line of West Coast Highway. "MINUTES 3. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 sq. ft. of "net public area" shall be provided for both the restaurant and bar. 4. That valet parking shall be provided during all hours.of operation of the proposed restaurant and bar. 5. That all valet parking shall be accomplished on site. 6. That all mechanical.equipment and trash areas shall be screened.from public streets, or .adjoining properties. 7. That all unpaved portions of the proposed • parking area shall be fully improved and all deteriorated portions of existing paving shall be repaired subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That parking spaces Nos. 67 -69 shall be deleted from the parking plan so as to allow adequate turning area for vehicles entering and leaving Coast Highway. 9. That.any parking lot lighting shall be de- signed so as to eliminate any light or glare upon surrounding properties. • 10. That P.C.C. sidewalk be completed along the West Coast Highway frontage, and that a standard P.C.C. commercial drive approach.be constructed. All work within the West Coast Highway right -of -way shall be completed under an encroachment permit from Caltrans.. 11. That a standard use permit.agreement and accompanying surety be provided, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completing the public improvement. ffim COMMISSIONERS March 5, 1981 MINUTES 0 ic d x ra, 5 City of Newport Beach ,LL I I INDEX 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit.,, the applicant's interest in the additional 12 feet of right -of -way along the southerly boundary of the property shall be dedicated to the public to allow for the widening of West Coast Highway.. 13. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 401 of the Rules and Regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition,.the kitchen hood system shall have an automatic fire pro- tection system installed. 14. That a landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared and implemented for the sub- ject project in accordance with the require- the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan and shall be permanently maintained. . 16. The landscape plan. shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recre- ation Department and approval of the Plannin Commissioner. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS General Plan Ame- ndment No. 80 -3 Commissioner Allen requested that the 1300 seat dinner theater proposed for the Civic Plaza Planned Community be addressed in the staff report for General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3. Planning Director.Hewicker stated that a'.site plan review would be required for the restaurant site. He also stated that the staff report on. the General Plan Amendment would clarify this item. 40 11111111 -29 March 5, 1981 MINUTES K W � 09 � City of Newport Beach INDEX Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Commissioner Thomas requested review of the grading and silt control's in conjunction with residential development in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community for the Tentative Map of Tract No. 10391. He stated that the silt basins are full and ready to breach. He suggested that this be reviewed to determine if it is in con- formance with the regulations and if not, to consider revoking the bond. Commissioner Mc- Laughlin concurred. Commissioner Balalis suggested that more stringent cleaning requirements should be estab- lished in the Grading Ordinance. Chairman Haidinger requested a report back to the Commission on this item. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that Jim Lorman of the • Building Department make a report to the Com- mission at the next study session.. Chairman Haidinger stated that Commissioner Balalis's suggestion on reviewing the Grading Ordinance could be handled at a study session, after the in-lieu parking item. He stated that Commissioner Thomas's request for review of the grading and silt controls should be heard at the Commission's.next evening meeting. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the owner of the project, J. M. Peters and,Company, will be contacted. Excused Absence Motion X Motion was made for an excused absence for Com- All Ayes X X X X X missioner Cokas from the.Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:35 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary 11111111 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -30-