Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/1984IV\ 1VM3 -"NEF,3 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers x TIME: 7:30 p.m. 0 c m m DATE: March 8, 1984 City of Newport Beach Commissioner McLaughlin was present at 9:15 p.m. X * X X Commissioner Person was absent. * * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary APPROVAL OF * THE *MINUTES Minutes of February 9, 1984 Motion Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission Ayes Ixlxlxlxl X Minutes of February 9, 1964, as written, which MOTION Absent * * CARRIED. Minutes of February 23, 1984 Motion X Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission Ayes X X X X Minutes of February 23, 1984, as written, which MOTION Absent * * CARRIED. Staff advised that the applicants for Item No. 1 - Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 597 and IUse Permit No. 3080, have requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, in order to submit revised project plans. otis on. IXi *IXIXIXIXI Motion was made to continue Item No. 1, to the Planning I Commission Meeting of March 22, -1984, which MOTION ent CARRIED. -1_ .. MINUTES MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 � v m m m. City of Newport Beach Staff referred to a letter dated March 5, 1984, and stated that the architect for Item No. 4 - Resubdivision No. 771, has requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the letter did not state the purpose of the requested continuance. Chairman King noted that there were several persons in attendance of tonight's meeting relating to this item and suggested that the public hearing be opened on this item. The Planning Commission members concurred. Staff recommended that Item No. 10 - Amendment No. 605, the Traffic Study, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 9, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time to renotice for the General Plan Amendment. Motion X Motion was made to - continue Item No. 10, to the Ayes X I * X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which Absent MOTION CARRIED. * * * Staff recommended. that Item No. 11 - Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3086, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time for the completion of the environmental document. Won X Motion was made to continue Item No. 11, to the Ayes X X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which Absent * MOTION CARRIED. - - -2- * * * Staff recommended that Item No. 7 - Resubdivision No. 773, Use Permit No. 3091 and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 8, be continued to the Planning • Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, in order to renotice the subject application. properly Motion X Motion was made to continue Item No. 7, to the Planning Ayes X X X X X Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which MOTION Absent * CARRIED. * * * Staff recommended that Item No. 10 - Amendment No. 605, the Traffic Study, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 9, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time to renotice for the General Plan Amendment. Motion X Motion was made to - continue Item No. 10, to the Ayes X I * X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which Absent MOTION CARRIED. * * * Staff recommended. that Item No. 11 - Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3086, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time for the completion of the environmental document. Won X Motion was made to continue Item No. 11, to the Ayes X X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which Absent * MOTION CARRIED. - - -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 8, 1984 FIIIII w. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL * ** Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 12 - Use Permit No. 3087, has requested that the application be withdrawn at this time. * * A. Newport Place Traffic Phasinq Plan Amendment No. 6 .1 Item #1 AND B. Amendment No. 597 (Continued Public Hearing) TPP #6 A 597 UP 3080 • AND C. Use Permit No. 3080 (Continued Public Hearing) LOCATION: .Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 48 -11, (Resubdivision No. 363) located at 1100 All Quail Street on the northeasterly side Continued of Quail Street, between Westerly Place to March and Dove Street, in the Newport Place 22, 1984 Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Quail Street Partners, Newport Beach OWNER:- Same as applicant Staff advised that the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, in order to submit revised project plans. Staff had no objections with the applicant's request. Motion *. * Ix Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning sent X X X Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 8, 1984 � r c m m 0 m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX A. Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No. 7 Item #2 Request to approve an amendment to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan to permit the construction of a NEWPORT 16,154 sq. ft. (net) office building on property PLACE located in "Professional and Business Offices Site 5 ". TPP #7 A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to permit a portion of the parking spaces to be compact sized parking spaces. AND I AND B. Amendment No. 604 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend the previously approved Newport Place AMENDMENT Planned Community regulations so as to allow the NO. 604 construction of a 16,154 sq. ft: (net) office building on property located in the "Professional and Business • Offices Site 5 ", and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATIONa Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 40 -31 (Resubdivision No. 319), located at 1400 BOTH -Dove Street, on the northeasterly corner APPROVED of Newport Place Drive and Dove Street, CONDI- in the Newport Place Planned Community. TIONALLY ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Bill Langston, Newport Beach OWNER: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport -_ Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bill Langston, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Langston stated that the total square footage of net floor area proposed on the site in the two structures will be .5 times the buildable area of the site, which is an acceptable and reasonable ratio. He further stated that the parking will remain surface parking. • I III I Planning Director Hewicker referred to Exhibit "A" for Amendment No. 604, and suggested that Finding No. 2 be deleted. -4- March 8, 1984 3 s m m ° City of Newport Beach Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, stated that the fair -share contribution for the circulation improvements and the sound attenuation barrier for the new building would be approximately $38,142.00. He stated that the fair -share contribution for the circulation improvements and the sound attenuation barrier for the expanded, existing building would be approximately $11,232.00. He stated that the total fair -share contributions for circulation improvements and sound attenuation barrier would amount to approximately $49,374.00. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Planning Director Hewicker explained how the fair share contributions are calculated. He stated that credit is given for the existing building., as it currently exists. He stated that the fair -share contribution is calculated by the increase in the new square footage. n LJ Motion JXJ'J'JJXJXJxJ Motion was made for approval of the E ironmental A es X Document and the Traffic Phasin g Plan, subject -to the Absent followin g findin g s and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: • ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based upon the information contained in the environmental document, the proposed project will not have a significant environmental impact. The project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures so that any presently anticipated negative environmental effects of the project would be eliminated. -5- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES March 8, 1984 e 7c f m ° m City of Newport Beach o ��a TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN FINDINGS: 1. That environmental documentation on this proposed project has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental .Quality Act and City Policy K -3 and that its contents have been considered in decisions on this project. 2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Place, 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections. • 4. That the establishment, maintenance of 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 of be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification to permit 258 of the parking spaces to be compact sized spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That the total development permitted on the site shall not exceed 26,550 sq.ft. , of net floor area as defined in Section 20.87.184 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That parking be provided at a ratio of at least one parking space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area. 3. That a maximum of 25 percent of the parking spaces • be compact size spaces. 4. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, or adjoining properties. '.L. MMISSIONERS March 8, 1984 i n 7c � r v m w m m ° City of Newport Beach MINUTES M ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I . I-INDEX 5. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub - leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against the site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport;' . • c.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this application, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road, and along the southerly side of West Coast Highway adjacent to Irvine Terrace and in West Newport. 7. Development of the site may be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. • I I I I I I 8 The Fire Department shall review design plans to ensure adequate access and emergency exits. -7- ROLL COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 � F � ° v m m m °. City of Newport Beach 9. The final layout and composition of surface parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. 10. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. The quantity and design of such spaces shall comply with all City Codes. 11. Parking arrangements during the construction period shall be. approved by the City Planning Department and the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and /or building permits. 12. That prior to the issuance of grading or building permits the project shall contribute a sum equal to its "fair- share" of future circulation, system improvements, as shown on the City's Master Plan • of Streets and Highways. 13. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 14. That each building be served with individual water services and sewer laterals unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department: 15. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 16. That the intersection of the streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. • I I I I I ! 17. That landscape plans shall be subject to review I and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 10 • Motion Ayes Absent • MINUTES 18. That the drive approaches be constructed or reconstructed to conform with City Std. DWG 166 -L and any unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Dove Street and Newport Place Drive frontages, and that all the work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 19. That an access ramp be constructed per City Std. 181 -L at the intersection of Newport Place Drive and Dove Street under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 20. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. AMENDMENT NO. 604 x Motion was .made to adopt Resolution No. 1114, RESOLUTION_ x X x x recommending approval of Amendment No. 604 to the City NO, 1114 Council, to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Regulations, deleting Finding No. 2 as suggested by staff, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: FINDINGSe 1. That the request to add 16,154 sq.ft. to the total permitted building area in "Professional and Business Site 5" is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict, with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. x March 8, 1984 3 x v m a w. City of Newport Beach 18. That the drive approaches be constructed or reconstructed to conform with City Std. DWG 166 -L and any unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Dove Street and Newport Place Drive frontages, and that all the work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 19. That an access ramp be constructed per City Std. 181 -L at the intersection of Newport Place Drive and Dove Street under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 20. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. AMENDMENT NO. 604 x Motion was .made to adopt Resolution No. 1114, RESOLUTION_ x X x x recommending approval of Amendment No. 604 to the City NO, 1114 Council, to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Regulations, deleting Finding No. 2 as suggested by staff, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: FINDINGSe 1. That the request to add 16,154 sq.ft. to the total permitted building area in "Professional and Business Site 5" is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict, with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. x MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 x v m m C6 ° w I City of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 3082 (Continued Public Hearing) Item #3 Request to reconsider the action of the Planning Commission in conjunction with the conditions of approval of a two -story office building and related off - street parking areas on property located in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted and which exceeds 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The proposed office building will exceed USE PERMIT the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation NO. 3082 District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested inasmuch as a portion of the required off - street parking spaces are proposed as compact parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 152 -28, 29 (Resubdivision No. 659) located at 2121 . East Coast Highway, on the southwesterly APPROVED CONDI- corner of East Coast Highway and Avocado TIONA LLY Avenue, in Corona del Mar. TIONA • ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: West Coast Investment, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Andrew Gianulias, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Gianulias requested that the Commission delete Conditions No. 38 and 39, relating to fair -share contributions for circulation improvements and the sound attenuation barrier. He explained background information relating to this item and stated that the proposed office building will result in approximately 25 percent fewer vehicular trips per day than the previous use. In response to a question posed by Mr. Gianulias, Chairman King stated that Condition No. 22 relates to the internal security system of the proposed project, whereas Condition No. 40 as imposed by the Planning Commission on February 9, 1984, relates to a security gate to be installed at the entrance of the subterranean parking area so that the general public could not gain access to the subterranean parking area during non - business hours, for public safety purposes. -10- ROLL CALL • Motion Ayes Absent • March.8, 1984 3 x v m m m ° City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the proposed . project would be required to satisfy the Building Department requirements relating to the handicapped. Planning Director Hewicker stated that he had received a telephone call from Mrs. Deborah Allen, resident of Harbor View Hills, in which she stated her and her husband's support of the proposed project. Mr. Bill Langston appeared before the Commission and stated that the fair -share contribution requirements should be deleted because the proposed office building will result in 129 fewer vehicular trips per day than the previous use. In response to question posed by Chairman King, Mr, Donald Webb, City Engineer, stated that the applicant's contribution for the sound attenuation barrier would amount to approximately $8,820.00. Chairman King stated that the condition relating to the sound attenuation barrier should be imposed upon this project because of its close proximity to Irvine Terrace. X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3082, X X X with the additional finding, "That the proposed project will .not be required to make a fair -share contribution for circulation . system improvements because the proposed office building will result in fewer vehicular trips per day than the previous use "; the condition relating to the fair -share contribution for the circulation system improvements shall be .deleted; the condition relating to the contribution to the sound attenuation barrier shall remain; and, the conditions relating to the security gate and the rough broom finish of the parking area surface shall remain, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared . in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. -11- MINUTES MINUTES March 8, 1984 M x � r v � m w. I City of Newport Beach 2. That the contents of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been considered in the decisions on this project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 4. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 5. Adequate off - street parking spaces will be provided for the proposed development. • 6. The project will not have any significant environmental impact, providing the mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are incorporated in the final project design. 7. Because the property slopes towards the rear of the proposed structure, and inasmuch as the roof top mechanical equipment is located at the rear of the structure, the visual impact of the structure is such that the building does not appear to exceed the height limit. B. The building height would result in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 9. The building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing development, inasmuch as the proposed structure will be lower than the Bank of Newport. • I I I I I I 10. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. -12- MINUTES March 8, 1984 X '0 m m m ° w: City of Newport Beach 11. That the proposed percentage of compact spaces is reasonable for the total number of parking spaces on the site. 12. That approval of Use Permit No. 3082 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 13. That although the gross buildable area of the project is 1.12, the actual development is only 1.01 times the buildable area when the unusable areas of the proposed atrium and second floor deck are deleted from the calculations. • 14. That the proposed project will not be required to make a fair -share contribution for ciruclation system improvements because the proposed office building will result in fewer vehicular trips per day than the previous use. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. The project shall be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph G. Division T -20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4. 3. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K -6 and K -7. 4. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed structure the circulation system improvements described in the Revised Initial Study approved on . July 22, 1982 shall have been accomplished. -13- March 8, 1984 3 � 9 m m m City of Newport Beach 5. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 6. The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. 7. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved areas and drives. 8. A landscape and,irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of .the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. No features on the property including the • landscaping, trees, flagpoles, sign poles, etc., shall exceed the roof top height of the proposed office building. 10. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. • 11. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 12. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 13. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 14. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. -14- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS March 8, 1984 3 X m m o W City of Newport Beach MINUTES -ROLLCALLI 111 1111 1 INDEX 15. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 16. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be reviewed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 17. The project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. 18. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. I I I I I I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT • The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c.) The City of Newport Beach. will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 19. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building material, and noise associated with said generators shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. • I I I I I ! I The latter shall be based upon the recommendations I of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. -15- g � v m m a_ March 8, 1984 MINUTES of Newport Beach 20. That the Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department 21. That the structure on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 22. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal security system (i.e., security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments and approved by the Planning Department. I I I I 23. That the final design of on -site pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and - the - Planning Department. 24. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the • satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. 25. That nighttime lighting necessary for security Planning Department and shall be shielded from All permitted signs on externally illuminated. shall be limited to that to be approved by the that nighttime lighting surrounding properties. the site shall only be 26. Interior circulation, parking traffic control, sign locations and directional signs shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 27. A plan shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineer for approval that insures adequate control over the use of the proposed tandem parking spaces. 28. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and,the Public Works Department. 29. That vehicular access to the subject property be taken from Avocado Avenue. • I I I ( I I I 30. That approximately 50 feet of deteriorated curb and gutter and 100 feet of deteriorated sidewalk be reconstructed on Avocado Avenue. -16- MISSIONERS • March 8, 1984 of Newport Beach 31. That the displaced sidewalk along East Coast Highway, where it. is displaced adjacent to the curb, be reconstructed. 32. That all work within the East Coast Highway right -of -way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 33. That a standard agreement with accompanying surety be provided to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit before completing the public improvements. 34. That all on -site drainage from dewatering systems and sumps be conveyed in a pipe to a public storm drain system. Pipes constructed in public right -of -way shall meet storm drain standards approved by the Public Works Department. 35. That the access drive to the underground parking structure be designed to provide adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles to see pedestrians on the sidewalk prior to the bumper crossing the property line. 36. That all handicap parking spaces shall have a minimum of 8' -2" vertical clearance. 37. Ramps shall not exceed 15% grade, except those providing access to parking shall not exceed 58. All ramp designs shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works and Building Departments. 38. Prior to issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this use permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area, and in the Irvine Terrace and Jamboree Road areas. -17- MINUTES 0 x � r 9 � m • March 8, 1984 of Newport Beach 31. That the displaced sidewalk along East Coast Highway, where it. is displaced adjacent to the curb, be reconstructed. 32. That all work within the East Coast Highway right -of -way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 33. That a standard agreement with accompanying surety be provided to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit before completing the public improvements. 34. That all on -site drainage from dewatering systems and sumps be conveyed in a pipe to a public storm drain system. Pipes constructed in public right -of -way shall meet storm drain standards approved by the Public Works Department. 35. That the access drive to the underground parking structure be designed to provide adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles to see pedestrians on the sidewalk prior to the bumper crossing the property line. 36. That all handicap parking spaces shall have a minimum of 8' -2" vertical clearance. 37. Ramps shall not exceed 15% grade, except those providing access to parking shall not exceed 58. All ramp designs shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works and Building Departments. 38. Prior to issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this use permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area, and in the Irvine Terrace and Jamboree Road areas. -17- MINUTES March 8, 1984 s � m v m 5 m 0 o . City of Newport Beach 39. That a security gate shall be installed at the entrance of the subterranean parking area so as to prevent vehicular and pedestrian access to said area during the evening hours. 40. The parking area surface shall be rough broom finished. Resubdivision No. 771 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing single parcel of land into two parcels for single family residential purposes. The proposal also includes a request for an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of two interior parcels with less than 50 foot . widths, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: .Lot No. 29, Block E, Tract No. 1219, located at 1021 Kings Road, on the .southerly side of Kings Road between St. Andrews Road and Signal Road, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Charles Winfield, Newport Beach OWNER: - _ Same as applicant Staff referred to a letter dated March 5, 1984,. and stated that the architect for this item has requested a continuance to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the letter did not state the purpose of the requested continuance. Chairman King noted that there were several persons in attendance of tonight's meeting relating to this item • I I I I I and suggested that the public hearing be opened on this item. The Planning Commission members concurred. -18- MINUTES Item #4 RESUB- DIVISION NO. 771 DENIED March 8, 1984 3 x � r • v m m a X " m City of Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr: Brion Jeannette, architect, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Jeannette requested that this item be continued so that the applicant can meet further with the members of the Cliff Haven Community Association to determine a solution to this issue and so that all interested parties can attend the public hearing. He stated that they are currently considering a plan which would protect. both private and public views, as well as offering a view plane easement for these views. Chairman King .stated that he has difficulty in justifying the creation of a substandard lot and the intensification of development on such a lot, on the basis of enhancing or creating views which do not currently exist. Mr. Charles Winfield, the applicant, appeared before . the Commission and discussed the proposed resubdivision. Mr. Winfield stated that the proposed 46 foot frontage on each of the lots would be four feet, or.8 percent, narrower that the City requirement of 50 feet. He stated that his lot is the largest lot located on. Kings Road. He further stated that there are only 9 other lots in the Cliff Haven area which could be divided, amounting to 3 percent of the lots in the area, which he stated would not be precedent setting and would not downgrade the area. He stated that the two proposed low- level, unobtrusive structures would be an asset to the neighborhood. • Mr. Winfield stated that they have conducted two person -to- person surveys and one mail survey. He stated that the results of these surveys have been favorable. He submitted.the results of the mail survey and stated that 32 persons were in favor of the lot split and only 6 persons were against the lot split. Mr. Winfield stated that the Kings Road area is different than other areas within the Cliff Haven Community Association. He stated that land values, property taxes, views /and obstructed views, land slippage and noise generated.by West Coast Highway are distinct problems which affect Kings Road residents. -19- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 � V m m w. City of Newport Beach Mr. Winfield stated that a restrictive covenant would be recorded against the property which would restrict the height limit and run with the property in perpetuity. He stated that the existing structure is not worthy of repair. He expressed his concern that if the proposed resubdivision is not granted, a large single structure can be constructed upon the lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Winfield stated that the proposed project has the support of more than 50 percent of the residents who live north of Kings Road. Mr. Joseph Walton, resident of 1011 Kings Road, stated that Mr. Winfield's current residence was originally built as a summer home and is an eyesore to the area. He stated that the views are very important to the • residents on Kings Road. He stated that he would be opposed to indiscriminate lot splits, however, he stated that he supports the proposed lot split to remove the current eyesore. Chairman King stated that creating a substandard sized lot for a property which is in disrepair, to financially benefit an applicant, does not constitute sound planning principles. Mr. Walton stated that the proposed project will improve the neighborhood. Mr. Walton further stated that it would be impractical for the applicant to construct one large structure upon the lot. Planning Director Hewicker stated that. the residents who own property on the inland side of Kings Road would obviously benefit from the lowering or the removal of the existing structure.. He suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of deed restricting the property in favor of the property owners. located directly across the street, in return for an economic remuneration. He stated that the applicant could then sell the underlying fee on the lot to another developer which could construct a single family residence at a . lower height. _20_ COMMISSIOI1-11ERS CALL March 8, 1984 3 � � � E v m m w. City of Newport Beach Chairman King stated that a single family residence could be built upon the lot which could contain the combined square footage of the proposed two structures and could still maintain the views of the surrounding properties. Ms. Barbara Whitford, President of the Cliff Haven Community Association, and resident of 406 Snug Harbor Road, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Whitford distributed copies of the minutes of the Cliff Haven Community Association Meeting held on February 26, 1984, and a petition which was hand carried to every home within the Association. She stated that the petition contains 155 signatures which are opposed to the proposed lot split. She expressed her concern that Mr. Winfield's survey only polled those residents on Kings Road. • Ms. Whitford stated that the opposition to a precedent setting decision on the lot split is quite strong. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the proposed request. Mr. Rob Craig, resident of 418 Snug Harbor Road, and a member of the Board of Directors for the Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Craig stated that the square footage of a lot split, as well as the size of the frontage must be considered when splitting a lot. He referred to a colored map and stated that there are 41 lots located within Cliff Haven that would have equal or larger frontages than the proposed request, if they were granted a lot split. He expressed his concern that the approval of the proposed request will set a precedent for future lot splits in the area. Chairman King asked if the Cliff Haven Community Association CC &R's require that the homeowners maintain their property within a specific set of standards. Mr. Craig stated that he is not aware of any such standards, however, he stated that the residents of the area have assisted their neighbors in maintaining their . property. -21- on MINUTES March 8, 1984 X v � m City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the CDBG fund program now consists of 'a land buy down in order to build low and moderate income housing,. rather than a rehabilitation of existing housing. Mr. Luther Swink, resident of 1001 Kings Road, stated that the proposed lot split and improvements would be a definite asset to the Kings Road property owners. He stated that there is very little difference between the 50 foot required minimum frontage and the 46 foot proposed frontage. He stated that the lots are extremely large on the bluff side and urged the Planning Commission to approve.this request. Commissioner Kurlander asked Mr. Swink where the line should be drawn on approving a lot split and the frontage which should be required. Mr. Swink stated • that each request should be given consideration as to its purpose and its benefit to the neighborhood. 0 Ms. Louise Ravera, resident of 911 Kings Road, stated that the proposed request will increase the property values in the area and improve the architectural integrity of the area. She stated that the proposed request will not affect the traffic. She stated that the traffic is not caused by the actual residents of the area, but is caused by visitors who are enjoying the uniqueness of the area. She referred to the map discussed by Mr. Craig and stated that the 41 lots would probably not meet other City standards, and therefore should not be considered as potential lots splits. She stated that there are only 9 lots, in the total area which could possibly request a lot split, which would not create a detriment or affect the traffic in the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Ms. Whitford referred to the colored map as discussed by Mr. Craig and stated that the 41 potential lot .splits are based strictly on a frontage of 46 feet or greater. -22- MINUTES I1 I� March 8, 1984 City of Newport Beach Mr. George Coppens, resident of 810 Kings Road, stated that he supports the proposed request: He referred to the colored map depicting the potential 41 lot splits which was presented at the Community Association meeting, and stated that the lots do not meet the City's requirement for depth and square footage. He stated that there are only 9 potential lots which could be split. In response to a question posed by Mr. Coppens, Planning Director Hewicker stated that Planning Commission discretion is required in order to resubdivide a single parcel of land into two parcels and, Planning Commission discretion is also needed in order to grant an exception to the Subdivision Code. He stated that in this case, the exception is needed to allow the creation of two interior parcels with less than the required 50 foot minimum widths. • Mr.. Coppens stated that reducing the lot width by 8 percent will benefit the community and the Kings Road residents. He stated that view preservation is very important to the residents of the area. Commissioner Winburn stated that the Planning Commission previously approved a somewhat similar resubdivision application ( Resubdivision No. 707), which contained the 50 foot width, 80 foot depth and the minimum 5,000 square feet requirements, including a condition relating to view preservation. However, she stated that the City Council overruled the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the resubdivision. Mr. Jeannette stated that the City Council denied the resubdivision because the lot was insufficient in size, in relationship to the lots located around it. Mr. Jeannette stated that there are presently 19 lots located on Kings Road which contain less than the 50 foot frontage. Therefore, he stated that the proposed request would not be setting a precedent. He stated that the lot in question is unique because it contains over 2' times the minimum depth requirement and is the largest lot located on Kings Road. -23- MINUTES ROLL CALL March 8, 1984 r x v m m m w City of Newport Beach Mr. Jeannette requested a continuance to further explore the ability to offer an irrevocable easement to the residents of Kings Road for view rights over this property. He stated that establishing a 3 foot 6 inch height limit from the curb would. protect the private views as well as the public views. Mr. Jeannette stated that the majority of the residents on Kings Road are in favor of the proposed project; whereas.many residents located beyond Cliff Drive are not in favor of the proposed project.. He stated that the unique nature of Kings Road must be considered in this request. Mrs. Kathleen Schuler, resident of 900 Kings Road, and a member of the Board of Directors for the Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Schuler stated that she was initially'against the • proposed lot split, however, she stated that she is now in support of the proposed project. She stated. that the public notice was sent to the property owners within 300 feet of the proposed request. She stated that these property owners are the persons who will be most directly affected by the proposed request and that these are the persons who are in favor of the proposed lot split. She stated that the decisions of the Planning Commission should consider those who are most directly affected by a proposed request. Chairman King stated that within every community association, there are areas and issues in which the residents can not agree upon a specific course of action. Mr. Coppens stated that when he purchased his property, he was not informed that the community association was involved with the CC &R's of the area. He stated that the community association is only a local organization. Mrs. Darlene Coppens, resident of 810 Kings Road, stated that if corner lots require a_60 foot frontage and 6,000 square feet of land area, then 6 of the 9 potential lot splits in question would have to be eliminated, because they could not meet these 0 .11 standards. -24- MINUTES MINUTES March 8, 1984 � x m ° W City of Newport Beach Mr. Joseph Walton stated that the applicant may be benefiting by the proposed request, however, the applicant is also giving up one -half of his lot in order to provide the two structures. Mr. Walton stated that emphasize should not be placed on the applicant making a profit. Mr. Winfield stated that his proposal will trade a dormant land asset for two usable residences. He stated that his net worth will remain the same, while the proposal will maintain the views for the area. Mr. Rob Craig stated that the Cliff Haven Community Association does not specifically benefit any one area, but the entire neighborhood. He stated that the total neighborhood must be considered, not just one street. Commissioner Balalis stated that he was the only Planning Commission member in favor of the previous • request on this property. He thanked the members of the community association for involving the residents of the area in the decision making process. He stated that the properties located on Kings Road do have different problems than the other properties located within the Cliff Haven area. He stated that the opposition appears to be mainly from residents not directly located on Kings Road. He stated that he lives on a 30 foot wide lot on Balboa Peninsula and that the proposed 46 foot frontage is large in comparison. Commissioner Balalis stated that since the last public hearing on this issue, the applicant has not sufficiently proven that the proposed lot split is unique. He stated that public views for the general public are considered to be an important factor in making such decisions, however, the issue of private views are not a mitigating factor for approving a request. Commissioner McLaughlin was present at 9:15 p.m. She stated that she would be abstaining from a vote on this issue. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support a motion •- for denial because a majority of the lots in the area maintain a 65 foot to 70 foot wide lot. He stated that he lives in a community in West Newport where there are 40 foot to 45 foot lots and that he is envious of the larger lot neighborhoods. -25- MINUTES March 8, 1984 m ;5N,00 m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made for denial of Resubdivision No. 771, Ayes X x X X X subject to the Findings of Exhibit "A ", which MOTION Abstain X CARRIED, as follows: Absent' FINDINGS: 1. Although the square footages of the proposed parcels are substantially greater than the 5,000 sq. ft. minimum required by Code, the proposed widths of the subject parcels do not meet the minimum standards of the Subdivision Code. 2. That the proposed resubdivision is inconsistent with the established size and shape of a majority of other lots in the Cliff Haven area, which was subdivided originally under a concept of larger lots. • 3. That the unique characteristic of the community with the larger sized lots should be preserved and remain as originally developed. 4. That the granting of this exception is not compatible with the objectives of the regulations governing light, air and the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare: • 5. That the granting of an exception to the Subdivision Code will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is located. * * * The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. * * * -26- March 8, 1984 � s � r v ro m m m o City of Newport Beach A. Amendment No. 600 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District so as to allow the construction of a cul -de -sac at the westerly terminus of Avon Street, easterly of Santa Ana Avenue. The proposal also includes a request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 4 and 5 so as to reclassify a portion of the southerly half of unimproved Avon Street (proposed to be vacated) , between Santa Ana Avenue and a point approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa Ana Avenue, from the SP -5 District (Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area) to the R -1 District (Single - Family Residential) . The extension of the five foot front yard setback on Santa Ana Avenue and the ten foot front yard setback on Avon Street, designated on said Districting Maps, are also proposed and the acceptance of an environmental document. • LOCATION: Property located at the southerly one -half of the unimproved portion of Avon Street, between Santa Ana Avenue and a point approximately 210.0 feet .easterly of Santa Ana Avenue, measured along the southerly boundary of unimproved Avon Street. • ZONE: SP -5 AND B. Resubdivision No. 767 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land and a portion of unimproved Avon Street (proposed for vacation) into four parcels for single - family residential purposes. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to permit a parcel with less than eighty feet in depth, and to allow the construction of a cul -de -sac with a thirty -two foot radius where a minimum forty foot radius is required. -27- MINUTES Item #5 A 600 R 767 CDP. #7 Continued to April 5, 1984 COMMISSIONERS A � r • v m m 5 m c m m a m � 7C Gf March 8, 1984 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX AND C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7 (Discussion) - Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for three additional single- family residential lots, pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low -and moderate - income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: A portion of Lot Z of the First Addition to the Newport Heights Tract, located at 2961 Cliff Drive, on the southeasterly corner of Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 and SP -5 • APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNER: _ Helen Kreutzkamp, Newport Beach ENGINEER: .Robin B. Hamers -and Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Rolly Pulaski, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. 'Mr. Pulaski stated that the proposed request will be compatible with the current land uses and with the R -1 standards. He referred to a memo dated March 7, 1984, from Fire Chief Reed, and stated that they can comply with all of the concerns listed, except for the length of the cul -de -sac. He stated that as a mitigation measure, they are proposing that the structures be required to contain a domestic sprinkler system for fire protection. Mr. Pulaski stated that the conclusions of the environmental document which was prepared for this project, do not indicate the need for the extension of Avon Street. He stated that diverting approximately 2,500 vehicles per day on the extension of Avon Street • I I I I I would not. alleviate the traffic and circulation problems experienced on West Coast Highway. r c 9 • m March 8, 1984 of Newport Beach Mr. Pulaski stated that the proposed request will allow for the construction of a cul -de -sac at the end of Avon Street, which will also minimize the grading on the property. He further stated that the proposal will not inhibit access to the commercial developments, however, he stated that it will prevent through traffic on Santa Ana Avenue at this location. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Pulaski. stated that domestic sprinkler systems are becoming quite commonplace in hillside areas. He stated that when these sprinkler systems are paid for in the initial construction, the costs are recaptured through insurance premium savings. He stated that Fire Chief Reed had indicated that he did not consider this as a mitigation factor. Chairman King expressed his concern with the • compatibility of the proposed residential uses being located in close proximity to the existing commercial development without an adequate buffer. Mr. Pulaski referred to a model depicting the proposed project and described the proposal to the Planning Commission members and the audience. He stated that he has presented the proposed request to the Newport Heights Community Association. • Mr. Steve Dobbie, resident of 330 Santa Ana Avenue, and President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Dobbie stated that they are in support of the proposed project subject to the following conditions: 1) Avon Street be a cul -de -sac and not extended to Santa Ana Avenue; 2) pedestrian access be included to connect Avon Street and Santa Ana Avenue; and, 3) the building height limit be controlled to prevent view blockage from the neighboring properties to the north and the east. Mr. Dobbie stated that the extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue would cause a detriment to the neighborhood with the additional 2,500 vehicles which would be generated through the area. -29- MINUTES MM1551C�ItILS March 8, 1984 3 x . City of Newport Beach Chairman King stated that the consideration for the extension of Avon Street to join Santa Ana Avenue would help to improve the circulation needs of the local community and the local service trips generated by the commercial developments in the area. Mr. Dobbie expressed his concern.that the vehicles generated by the extension would end up travelling through the residential areas of Newport Heights. He stated that there are approximately 750 residences in Newport Heights. Ms. Helen Kreutzkamp, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission and discussed the previous proposals during the past four years which have been requested on her property. She referred to her letter dated March 5, 1984, and her daughter's letter, Ms. Beverley Kongle, dated March 6, 1984, and stated that the proposed three additional landscaped residences • will be a vast improvement over the existing weeded area. Mr. Russell Evans, property owner in Newport Heights, stated that the proposed request would be an asset to the area and the proposed residences would be aesthetically pleasing. He stated that the extension of Avon Street would create traffic problems for the residential neighborhood and requested that Avon Street be a cul -de -sac. Mr. Cliff Williamson, resident of 233 Santa Ana Avenue, asked for clarification on the proposed setbacks on Santa Ana Avenue. Chairman King stated that the setbacks would be .taken from the new development. Mr. Williamson stated that he would be opposed to the extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue and requested that Avon Street be a cul -de -sac. Mr. Robin Hamers, resident of 427 Westminster Avenue, and the engineer for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hamers discussed background information on the previous proposals which have been • requested on this property. -30- MINUTES INDEX March 8, 1984 $ � S v m m m ° City of Newport Beach Mr. Hamers stated that in 1982, the Planning Commission approved a request on the property which included the extension of 'Avon Street. However, the City Council overruled the Planning Commission's decision and denied the request. He stated that the current request is now proposing Avon Street as a cul -de -sac. Mr. Hamers asked the Planning Commission for their direction in establishing a plan for Avon Street which would be in the best interest of the neighborhood and the City. Mr. Bruce Kreutzkamp, resident of 2961 Cliff Drive, asked for clarification of the Fire Department concerns relating to the cul -de -sac. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the cul -de -sac should be no greater than 500 feet in length because the Fire Department equipment can not adequately be carried more than 500 feet. Mr. Kreutzkamp stated that Santa Ana Avenue will be located directly behind the proposed residences • which would provide additional access for the Fire Department equipment. Mr. Kreutzkamp requested that Avon Street be allowed as a cul -de -sac. He stated that the extension of Avon Street would .create a reverse bank turn near the retaining wall, which would cause a potential detriment and future liability. r1 L_J In response to a question posed by Chairman King; Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee has recently finalized their recommendations for the City Council. He stated that the plan includes the widening of West Coast Highway and the probable extension of Avon Street. He stated that he anticipates that a program for this development could be established within the next fiscal year. He estimated that the financing could probably not be obtained for the widening of West Coast Highway in the Mariner's Mile. area for five to seven years. He stated that the improvements to Avon Street would also fall within the estimated five to seven year time frame. He stated that this would also depend upon the redevelopment which occurs between Riverside Drive and Old Newport Boulevard. -31- MINUTES MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 � r f y m m °. City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Webb stated that the 2,500 vehicle trips per day which would be diverted from West Coast Highway with the extension'of Avon Street may not be significant to the traffic volume of West Coast Highway, but are considered to be significant to the area because this will provide a secondary access to the commercial uses in order to keep the businesses viable,' however, he stated that this may not be totally compatible with the residential uses in the area. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Webb stated that the Route 55 improvements would not be completed within the estimated five to seven year time frame. He stated that the improvements to the Arches interchange may. be completed within the next five years. I I I I I I I I Mr. Pulaski referred to -the Initial Study which was • prepared on the proposed request and stated that the report concludes that the extension of Avon Street would not be sufficiently attractive to divert any through .traffic off of West Coast Highway. He further stated that travel on Avon Street would consist primarily of vehicles travelling to and from abutting properties. He stated that the required elevation of Avon Street to intersect Santa Ana .Avenue- would severely restrict potential access to adjacent commercial property. Mr. Pulaski stated that the.residents of the area and the affected community association have requested that Avon Street not be extended. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the request as proposed. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the recommendations of the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee be considered by the City Council before action is taken on the .proposed request. He stated that in this way, the future of Avon Street can be determined. He stated that it is the Planning Commission's duty to consider the long range planning goals for each area. He expressed his concern with the problems which may be created by the close proximity of the proposed residential uses to the commercial strip uses, regardless of whether or not Avon Street is extended. -32- March 8, 1984 3 x City of Newport Beach In response to concerns expressed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Pulaski stated that the future homeowners of the proposed residential uses will be aware, and chose to live in the area where commercial uses already exist in close proximity. He stated that this is a subjective concern which may never occur. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Webb stated that it is anticipated that the City Council will consider the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee recommendations at their meeting on March .26, 1984. Commissioner Balalis suggested that any persons wishing to express their opinions regarding the future of Avon Street, should attend the City Council hearing and voice their concerns. I I I I 1 1, 1 1 Commissioner Goff stated that approving the project as • proposed would preclude the extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue. Therefore, he stated that he would support a denial of the proposed project. He stated that the 2,500 diverted vehicles per day may seem to be a small percentage of the total traffic volume on West Coast Highway, however, he stated that it does constitute a 10 percent decrease in the future volume capacity on West Coast Highway. He expressed his concern with the close proximity of the proposed residential uses to the existing commercial uses and the future conflicts which may arise between these uses. He also expressed his concern that the redevelopment of the commercial uses may obstruct the views from the proposed residential uses, which will create further conflict. • Commissioner McLaughlin stated that the extension of Avon Street and the additional 2,500 vehicles per day would be detrimental to the residential community. she stated that she would not want the additional traffic in her neighborhood. She stated that the residents of the area have voiced their concerns and have recommended that Avon Street be a cul -de -sac. She stated that she would support the proposed project if the concerns of the Fire Department could be resolved. -33- MINUTES INDEX i x � r c a 6 0 E 1 r i �J • March 8, 1954 of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis stated that the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee has recommended that consideration should be given to a one -way operation on Santa Ana- Avenue northerly of Avon Street, or the prohibition, of right -turn movements from Avon Street onto Santa Ana Avenue. Also, consideration should be given to the operational design and characteristics of the North Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue intersection. Commissioner Balalis stated that the City Council's denial of the previous request on this property was on the basis of denying the lot split. He stated that subsequently, the City Council has established an ad -hoc committee to review the traffic problems in the Mariner's Mile area, - specifically west Coast Highway and Avon Street. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she had interpreted the City Council's action differently, as a reflection of the desires of the community residents which were opposed to the extension of Avon Street. - Mr. Pulaski expressed his concern that a decision on the .proposed. project not be postponed indefinitely, while the City attempts to determine the outcome of Avon Street. He stated that he would concur with a continuance to hear the results of the City Council's consideration of the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee recommendations. He stated that it is important for the City Council.to understand the issues involved in this particular development. Chairman King suggested that Mr. Pulaski alert the City Council as to the issues involved in this particular development and provide input relating to the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee recommendations. Commissioner Kurlander stated that even if the item is not open for a public hearing, the applicant can address the City Council under the public comments portion of the agenda. In response to a question posed by Mr. Pulaski, Chairman' King stated that the Planning Commission's comments will be passed on to the City Council by the minutes of this public hearing. -34- MINUTES MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 � � � S � m m .Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis suggested that Mr. Pulaski .review the recommendations of the Mariner's Mile Circulation Committee, specifically Exhibit "A" Mariner's Mile Highway Improvement and Implementation Program, and address the financing program as it relates to implementing these improvements. Commissioner Winburn expressed her concern with the close proximity of the proposed residential uses to the existing commercial development and the potential conflicts which may .arise between those uses. She concurred that the recommendations of the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee should be considered by the City Council before action is taken on the proposed request. Commissioner Goff stated . that perhaps there are no • circumstances under which development plans such as these should be approved, for the reasons which have been previously stated: He referred to the staff report, Exhibit "A ", Findings for Denial, and stated that these findings adequately address the reasons for denial of the proposed application. Motion X Motion was made to continue Resubdivision No. 767 to Ayes X X X X X the Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 1984, in Abstain X order to give the applicant an opportunity to address Absent * the City Council relating to the recommendations of the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee, which MOTION CARRIED. Chairman King stated that the motion for a continuance to April 5, 1984, would also apply to Item No. 6 - Resubdivision No. 768, as this application is in the same vicinity as the proposed Resubdivision No. 767. -35- r1 U Motion Ayes Abstain Absent • n x � m m o m �_ MINUTES March 8, 1984 of Newport Beach Resubdivision No. 768 (Public Hearing) Iltem #6 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into three parcels of land for single family residential purposes. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow a 40 foot wide right -of -way on Avon Street where a minimum 60 foot RESUB- width is required. - - DIVISION NO. 768 LOCATION: Lot 2, Block B, First Addition to Newport Heights Tract, located at 2953 Cliff Drive on the southerly side of Cliff Drive, easterly of Santa Ana Avenue, in Newport Heights. Continued. ZONE: R -1 - to April 5, 1984 APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNER: - Rolly Pulaski and Rob Ingold, Newport Beach ENGINEERS: Robin B. Hamers and Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa Chairman King noted that this application is in the same vicinity as the proposed Resubdivision No. 767, which was the previous item on the agenda. Therefore, the previous discussion should be referred to. Motion was made to continue Resubdivision No. 768 to X X X X the Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 1984, in order to give the applicant an opportunity to address the City Council relating to the recommendations of the Mariner's Mile Traffic Circulation Committee, which MOTION CARRIED. -36- MINUTES March 8, 1984 r c 'O m m 10 m City of Newport Beach A. Resubdivision No. 773 (Public Hearing) 11tem #7 AND B. Use Permit No. 3091. (Public Hearing) MID R 773 UP 3091 CDP #8 LOCATION: - - Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 84 -1 - (Resubdivision No. 403) located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between Continued "E" Street and "F" Street, on the Balboa to March Peninsula. - - 22, 1984 • I I I , I ( i I APPLICANT:- Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNER: Robert P. Warmington, Costa Mesa Staff advised the Planning Commission that as a result of an inaccurate address submitted in conjunction with the subject application, the public notices for this project have identified the wrong property and therefore, the application must be renoticed. Staff recommended that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, in order to properly renotice the subject application. Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Ayes x X X X X Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which .MOTION Absent* * CARRIED. * * The Planning Commission recessed at 11:00 p.m. and reconvened at 11:10 p.m. • � I .I 1 � ' I I * * * _37- r1 LJ MINUTES March 8, 1984 r i o m m m ° T. I City of Newport Beach Modification No. 2931 (Appeal) (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a solar greenhouse room that is proposed to encroach 6 feet into the required 6 foot rear yard setback area. LOCATION: Lot 105, Tract No. 6152, located at 1407 MODIFI- - Seacrest Drive, on the southwesterly CATION side of Seacrest Drive, between NO. 2931 Sandcastle Drive and Catamaran Drive, in (Appeal) Harbor View Hills. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: Jack Love, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant Continued to April APPELLANT: Same as applicant - 5, 1984 The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jerry Riggs, of Capistrano Solar Systems, Inc., representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Riggs stated that the proposal is for a passive solar greenhouse. He stated that specific design requirements, such as proper orientation to the sun and the amount of thermal mass are necessary. He stated that the California State Solar Rights Entitlement Act encourages the use of solar energy and specifically recommends that jurisdictions make exceptions in lot setbacks and other restrictions when considering solar applications. Mr. Riggs stated that the solar greenhouse is not classified as habitable space or a room addition. He stated that the solar greenhouse will provide heat for the residence and significant energy savings. He stated that the applicant can also enjoy the space of the solar greenhouse. He stated that the proposed location of the solar greenhouse will best maximize the function for what.it is intended. Mr. Riggs distributed photographs of the existing residence and stated that the proposed encroachment into the rear yard setback will not be detrimental to the neighborhood because of the 100 foot slope which -38- MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 x i v ro ° m a a m ° 1 City of Newport Beach m INDEX exists between the .applicant's property and his neighbors property. He stated that the applicant's neighbor is in support of the proposed request and has agreed that no permanent structures will be built within ten feet.of the rear property line. Mr. Riggs referred to Exhibit "B" of the staff report, Findings and Conditions of Approval, and stated that the proposed request will comply. with all of these conditions and will also meet all of the Building Code standards. Chairman King asked Mr. Riggs if the same results could be obtained without constructing the project to the lot line. Mr. Riggs stated that the solar greenhouse would be severely limited if it were to be constructed three feet from the back wall. Chairman King expressed his concern that the easement which the neighbor has agreed . to grant is located on an unusable steep slope. He stated that the purpose of an easement is to gain access in the event of a fire or an emergency. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Riggs stated that he did not represent the applicant at the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association when the request, was presented. Mr. Riggs stated that the Architectural Control Committee approved the proposed plans. Chairman King stated that during a meeting last evening, members of the. Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association expressed their concerns that their approval of this application was for a patio cover. He stated that the members had indicated that they were not aware that the request was for a solar greenhouse. Mr. Jack Love, the applicant,, stated that he had originally presented his request to the Association and that the Association adopted the wording "patio cover ". He stated that proposed plans were subsequently submitted to the President of the Association. He stated that his purpose of presenting the request to the Association was to be a good neighbor. He stated • that the California State Solar Rights Entitlement Act circumvents any CC &R's -which prevent the use of solar equipment. -39- MINUTES March 8, 1984 � x � � 5 . y m m a m ° m City of Newport Beach E ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX Chairman King stated that when he presented the proposed plans to the Association meeting last evening, the members voted unanimously to deny the proposed request. He stated that the Association has requested that the proposal be referred back to the Association for their further review. Chairman King expressed his concern with the construction of the greenhouse to the rear property line. Further, he stated that the greenhouse can be utilized as habitable space. He stated that other types of solar equipment can be installed which would give the applicant the same solar advantages without encroaching . to the rear lot line. He stated that by his interpretation, the proposed request constitutes a room addition. Mr. Love reiterated that the proposed request is for a passive solar greenhouse and not a room addition. He • stated that his neighbor will provide a recorded document that no permanent structures will be built within. 10 feet of the rear property line. He stated that the. City Attorney will provide the necessary language. He stated that in the event of a fire, the windows of the greenhouse can be knocked out, regardless of whether it is located on the lot line or 3 feet from the lot line. Chairman King referred to the staff report and stated that the applicant's neighbor, Mr. Charles Caldwell, located at 1401 Seacrest Drive, is opposed to the waiver of the required rear yard setback. Mr. Love stated that this is an issue of aesthetics and further stated that other neighbors are in support of the proposal. Commissioner Balalis stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is that the proposed project will encroach 6 feet into the required 6 foot rear yard setback area. I I I I I Commissioner.Kurlander asked if the encroachment to the lot is necessary in order to obtain a certain volume of air within the greenhouse to create the solar energy. Mr. Love stated that this.is correct and further stated • that the existing wall is the natural location for the greenhouse to terminate. Mr. Love stated that he would also like to enjoy his patio furniture in the greenhouse area. -40- o x v m m • • March 8, 1984 of Newport Beach Commissioner Kurlander suggested that rather than extending the greenhouse to the rear property line, perhaps the greenhouse could extend further along the back of the residence in order to obtain the same solar energy efficiency. Mr. Riggs stated that this may be possible, however, he stated that the shape of the greenhouse would be out of proportion and would also destroy the use of the existing patio area. He stated that it is logical to construct the greenhouse to the lot line. He stated that it is not a feasible project if the applicant can not-enjoy the use of this space. Chairman King stated that it is evident that the proposal is not solely for solar purposes, but also has a joint use as habitable space. He stated that the Association has not approved a use of this size. He stated that he is a proponent of solar energy, however, he stated that the issues which have been raised this evening must be resolved. In response to a question posed by Planning Director Hewicker, Mr. Riggs stated that there will be no mechanical equipment installed on the proposed solar greenhouse.. Mr. Riggs stated that the solar energy will be distributed to the residence through conduction and convection. Mr. Love stated that the proposed location of the solar greenhouse is the only location on the lot in which the solar greenhouse would be efficient. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Robert Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the City has the authority to exercise reasonable regulations on any proposal which would be consistent with the Building and Zoning Codes. He stated that the City is not required to approve all solar energy applications and further, the City has the authority to regulate the placement of the solar systems on the property. Mr. Riggs stated that he and the applicant are surprised with the comments of the Association, as indicated by Chairman King. Mr. Riggs stated that he would be willing to present the proposed request to the Association. -41 -. MINUTES INDEX March 8, 1984 3 � f � m pp m ° City of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis stated that solar greenhouses are beautiful, however, he can not approve a solar greenhouse which encroaches to the rear property line. He stated that the City requirements for setbacks are important to provide light, air and privacy for neighboring properties. Further, he stated that access should be provided around the perimeter of each lot. Commissioner Kurlander - concurred with Commissioner Balalis and stated that solar energy equipment is a benefit to the property owner and to the general community. He stated that the same solar energy benefits could be obtained if the greenhouse were redesigned to extend further along the back of the residence, rather than extending to the rear lot line. Mr. Riggs stated that the solar energy applications • should be considered by the .Planning Commission on an individual basis. He stated that in this particular case, the construction of the solar greenhouse to the. rear lot. line is reasonable and will provide an easement access to the property. He stated that the applicant currently utilizes his patio furniture at the property.lot line. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern with the steep slope located at the property line. He stated that a greenhouse maintaining a. 3 foot setback from the property line would resolve his concern. He stated that this may displace the applicant from enjoying the greenhouse space, however, the solar energy use would still be effective. Planning Director Hewicker clarified that the Zoning Code requires that the structure be setback 6 feet from the property line. The Uniform Building Code requires that the structure be setback a minimum of 3 feet from the property line so as to provide a minimum of 6 feet between adjoining properties. He stated that in this particular case, because of the slope and the location of the structure below, there is considerably more than • 6 feet between the structures. -42- ON MINUTES INDEX 3 A � r m W m 6?K p 0 March 8, 1984 M Mr. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, stated that the Fire Department has indicated that they would have no objections to the proposed encroachment, as they are satisfied that there will be access on both sides of the residence. Chairman King further expressed his concern that the construction of the greenhouse at the property line will affect the privacy of the adjoining properties and the noises generated from the interior of the residence will be extended to the property line, realizing that the same noises can be generated from the existing patio area. He stated that he would not support the proposed request because it encroaches to the property line. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the applicant proposes to construct the solar greenhouse • six feet from the property line, discretionary approval is not required by the Planning Commission. He stated that if the applicant proposes to construct the solar greenhouse three feet from the property line, a modification is required. Chairman King suggested that perhaps the applicant may want to redesign the.solar greenhouse. Mr. Love stated that he would like to have this option and would also like to have the opportunity to present the plan to the Association. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that the applicant also consider the alternative solutions which have been offered this evening. Commissioner Winburn stated that the offer from the neighbor for the 10 foot easement is worthless from the standpoint of access and privacy.. She stated that she would be 'opposed to the solar greenhouse being constructed to the property line. Motion Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning All Ayes X * X X Commission of April 5, 1984,,in order for the applicant to meet with the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association Architectural Committee to resolve this issue, which MOTION CARRIED. • � I I ' I I I ' * * * -43- IN MINUTES INDEX March 8, 1984 �.m C 52 m o City of Newport Beach Resubdivision No. 772 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into one parcel for office development and one parcel for common parking and landscaping purposes. LOCATION: Parcel 7.of Parcel Map 181 -13 -19 ( Resubdivision No. .731) and .Lot 2 of Tract No. 8762, located at 4220 Von Karman Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Von.Karman Avenue, between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Koll Company, Newport Beach • I I I I I I I OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance Company, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. John. Richards, representing, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the resubdivision. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 772, All Ayes * X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: - - 11 FINDINGS: 1. That the m. 19 of the ordinances general or Commission subdivision. ap meets the requirements of Title Newport Beach Municipal Code, all of the City, all applicable specific plans and the Planning is satisfied with the plan of 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -44- MINUTES Item #9 RESUB- DIVISION NO. 772 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY MMSSIONERS1 MINUTES March 8, 1984 m m m m City of Newport Beach 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed I I I I ( ( I 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each building be served with an individual water. service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the • Public works Department.- 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian . circulation systems be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. • 5. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the. Public 'Works Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. • a -45- INDEX MINUTES March 8, 1984 Staff recommended that these applications be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time to renotice for the General Plan Amendment. Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Ayes X X X x Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, _which MOTION Absent * * CARRIED. • -46- g� g .o m m m. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX A. Amendment No. 605 (Public Hearing) Item #10 AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) AND A 605 TS C. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Public Hearing) TMT 11937 - - - CDP #9 AND D. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 9 .. (Discussion) LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1200 East Coast Continued Highway, on the. northeasterly corner of to March Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway, 22 1984 • across from Irvine Terrace. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: - Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Adams /Streeter, Civil Engineers, Irvine Staff recommended that these applications be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time to renotice for the General Plan Amendment. Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Ayes X X X x Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, _which MOTION Absent * * CARRIED. • -46- MINUTES � x r City of March 8, 1984 Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX A. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) AND B. Use Permit No. 30M (Public Hearing) Staff recommended that this application be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time for the completion of the environmental document. Motion I Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Ayes X X Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which MOTION Absent -* * CARRIED. - x x x • -47- Item LOCATION: Portions of Lots G and H, Tract No. 919,_ located at 2901 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Riverside Avenue and Newport Boulevard in Mariner's Mile - - (Development Site); Lots 7 -9 and a portion of an abandoned alley in Tract No. 1133, located on the southeasterly corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon- - Street, in Mariner's Mile (Off -Site • Parking location). ZONE: - SP -5 - - APPLICANT: - Senator. D.G. Anderson, Honolulu - OWNER:- _ - -_Same as applicant - Staff recommended that this application be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, so as to allow time for the completion of the environmental document. Motion I Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Ayes X X Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, which MOTION Absent -* * CARRIED. - x x x • -47- Item MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 � i � 5 9 m 0 m C W p m ° City of Newport Beach M KULL CALL I III Jill I INDEX Use Permit No. 3087 (Public Hearing) I Item #12 Request to permit the establishment of a retail popcorn, candy and gift shop on property located in the C -1 District which includes take -out popcorn. The proposal also includes a request to waive all of the required off - street parking. USE PERMIT un znol LOCATION: Lot 25, Island Avenue, Avenue, Avenue, ZONE: C -1 Block 12, Section 4, Balboa Tract, located at 207 Marine on the westerly side of Marine between Balboa Avenue and Park on Balboa Island. APPLICANT: John R. -- OWNER: - Sara K. Sawyer, Estate c/o Crocker National Bank • Staff advised the Planning Commission that the applicant has requested to withdraw his application at this time. Staff stated that they have no objections to this request. R k !e Use Permit No. 3088 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of an automobile sales facility on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lot 5, Block E. Tract No. 323 and Lots 19 and 21, Block 533, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 2743 East Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue, in Corona del Mar. -48- WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT Item #13 USE - PERMIT -' NO. 3088 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY ZONE: C -1 and R -2 APPLICANT: - Sachs and Sons, Downey . OWNER: - Properties Four, San Marino -48- WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT Item #13 USE - PERMIT -' NO. 3088 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY MMIJX March 8, 1984 ri R W a City of Newport Beach MINUTES E R O L L CALL I . 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 INDEX The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Roland Gautier, architect, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Gautier stated that there will be no service work to the vehicles performed on the premises. Mr. Gautier referred to a letter dated March 8, 1984, from Mr. Stephen Forde -, General Partner of Properties Four, stating his concurrence with those items in Exhibit "A" which specifically relate to the owner of the property. Mr. Gautier stated that the Findings and Conditions of Approval as outlined in Exhibit "A" are acceptable to the applicant. Commissioner Goff stated that the 10 foot by 10 foot addition to the rear of the property is not indicated on the plans which have been submitted. Mr. Gautier stated that the addition was constructed after the original plans for this facility were submitted. He • stated that it is their intention for the addition to remain as it currently exists. Mr. Wade Alexander, owner of property located at 517 Goldenrod, suggested the following conditions: That the lighting be turned off at 8:00 p.m., rather than 10.00 p.m..; and, that the parking lot maintenance or cleaning activity not take place prior to 9:00 a.m. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Gautier requested that the lighting be allowed to remain until 9:00 p.m. for the safety of the employees on the premises. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that an automobile dealership located on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar is not appropriate and therefore offered the following motion: Motion X Motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. 3088, with the finding that the approval of this use permit will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property • I I ( I I I I and improvements in the neighborhood or the general i welfare of the City. -49- COMMISSIONERS 3 � � � 5 v � m ROLL CALL March 8, 1984 MINUTES of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff stated that the operational characteristics of the facility require that the vehicles will be on display in the. interior of the building, with no outside display of automobiles. He stated that the proposed request would appear to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the gasoline service stations located on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar are automobile oriented businesses. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition of Approval No. 13 and stated that this requires that all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1400 shall remain in effect so long as the commercial use exists at 2743 East Coast Highway. He stated that the prior use permit contains the condition that there shall be no parking lot maintenance or cleaning prior to 8:00 a.m. nor later than 8:00 p.m. • Chairman King stated that he would support a motion for approval of the proposed request. He stated that the existing. structure has been empty for quite some time and expressed his concern with the current condition of the exterior maintenance of the building and the landscaping. Chairman King stated that since the business will be opening at 9:00 a.m., the maintenance hours should remain from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Goff concurred. Substitute Substitute Motion was made for approval of Use Permit Motion X No. 3088, subject to the findings and conditions of Ayes X X X X Exhibit "A ", with the revision to Condition No. 3 that Noes X X the lights be turned off by 9:00 p.m. every night; and, Absent * the plot plan shall be changed to reflect the additional square footage located at the rear of the building, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed .development is' consistent with the General Plan, and the adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. • 2. The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impact. -50- ROLL COM 3 x m c m c ? 0. x A m MINUTES March 8, 1984 of Newport Beach 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3088 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working inthe neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property, within the proposed development. CONDITIONS: i I I I I I I I 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor . plan and elevations., except as noted below. Further, the plot plan shall be changed to reflect the additional square footage located at the rear of the building. 2. That all. mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties, from Goldenrod Avenue and from West Coast Highway. 3. That the exterior illumination shall be maintained in such a manner as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties and from Goldenrod Avenue and from East Coast Highway.. A timing device shall turn off any lights by 9:00 p.m. every night.. 4. That the parking lot area shall be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide, providing a minimum of 10 spaces to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal-Code. 6. That all improvements be, constructed as required • by ordinance and the Public Works Department. -51- • 3 R r M m m ° m 3 - 3S;mm�m if March 8, 1984 of Newport Beach 7. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or occupancy of the building prior to completion of the public improvements. 8. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 9. That a 12 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue be dedicated to the public prior to the occupancy of the building. The existing sign shall be relocated from the corner cutoff area. 10. Prior to occupancy of the building the existing deteriorated sidewalk and curb return at the corner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue shall be reconstructed along with the construction of a curb access ramp and that all work is to be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department. of Transportation. A' new curb return radius of 25' radius is to be used. 11. The size and location of the proposed signs shall be subject to.approval of the Traffic Engineer. 12. The wall to the west of the Goldenrod Avenue driveway shall conform to the sight distance criteria of Std. 110 -L. 13. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1400 shall remain in effect so long as the commercial use exists at 2743 East Coast Highway. 14, That landscaping be installed in all planter areas and be continuously maintained so long as the commercial use exists at 2743 East Coast Highway., 15. That no repairs or servicing outdoor display, shall be unless an amended use permit City. -52- of automobiles, or permitted on -site, is approved by the MINUTES INDEX MINUTES March 8, 1984 3 x v m 3 0 = m City of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 3089 (Public Hearing) Item #14 Request to permit the installation of a tennis court with outdoor lighting on 22 foot high standards. The proposal also includes a request to permit the construction of a 10 foot. high chain link fence where the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Regulations allow a maximum fence height of eight feet. USE PERMIT NO. 3089 LOCATION: Lot 35, Tract No. 11449, located at 39 Rockingham Drive, at the easterly terminus of Rockingham Drive, in Area 2 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. APPROVED ZONE: P -C CONDI- TIONALLY APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Inc., - • Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Robert Trapp, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the use permit. Mr. Kenneth Rosing, resident of 4470 Park Newport Drive, stated that his son owns Lot 39 and is opposed to the proposed request. He expressed his concern that the tennis court could be sold or donated to the homeowners association in the future and the tennis court would then become a public use which would generate traffic and parking congestion into this residential area. In response.to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Trapp stated that there are residences located on Lots No. 36 and 37. He apologized for not submitting an updated exhibit. He stated that the owner of Lot No. 36 would like to buy Lot No. 35 for the use of a tennis court. -53 MMISSIUNtKS March 8, 1984 � x : 9 9 � m City of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker suggested the following additional condition which may address the concern expressed by Mr. Rosing: "That the tennis court may only be used and be permitted to remain on Lot No. 35 so long as it remains owned exclusively by the owner of Lot No. 36." Mr. Rosing stated that this would be acceptable. Mr. Trapp also concurred. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Robert Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the 'suggested condition is a legitimate condition to impose upon the use permit. Motion X Motion was made for - approval of Use Permit No. 3089, All Ayes X * X X X X X subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the additional condition as suggested by staff relating to the tennis court use, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: • FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3089 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: • 11111111. i The development shall be in substantial I conformance with the approved plot plan. -54- MINUTES CALL 0 March 8, 1984 � � 5 X ° City of Newport Beach 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses and to adjoining streets. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion , this requirement has been met. 3. That the lights shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. 4. That the light fixtures shall not exceed 22 feet above the tennis court surface. 5. That the tennis court may only be used and be permitted to remain on Lot No. 35 so long as it remains owned exclusively by the owner of Lot No. 36. MINUTES -55- x Use Permit No-3090 (Public Hearing) Item #15 Request to permit the installation of tennis courts with outdoor lighting on 22.foot high standards on each of the subject properties. LOCATION: Lot 6, Tract No. 11450, located at 49 USE PERMIT NO. 3090 Belcourt Drive North, on the easterly side of Belcourt Drive North; Lot 14, Tract No. 11450, located at-7 Chadbourne Court, on the southeasterly side of the easterly terminus of Chadbourne Court; Lot 4, Tract No. 11605; located at 8 Leesbury Court, on the northerly side of APPROVED the easterly terminus of Leesbury Court; CONDI- and Lot 7, Tract No. 11605; located at 5 TIONALLY Leesburg Court, on the southerly side of Leesbury Court, between Belcourt Drive North and the easterly terminus of Leesbury Court, all in Area 5 of the - _ Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. • ZONE: P -C -55- MINUTES March 8, 1984 � R r a m m City of Newport Beach INDEX APPLICANT: J.M. Peters Company, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: . . Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Robert Trapp, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the use permit. Motion X Motion was. made for approval of Use Permit No. 3090, All Ayes 2 * X X x X subject to the following findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED: - FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed uses are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding.land. uses. • 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will, be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3090 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the.health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses and to adjoining streets. The plans shall be prepared I ( I I I I and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. -56- March 8, 1984 3 x f � v m W 5 °. ,City of Newport Beach 3. That the lights shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily at each court. 4. That the light fixtures shall not exceed 22 feet above the tennis court surface. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 12 :30 a.m. • _James Person, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission -57- MINUTES