Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1980C MISSIONERS1 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers w Time: 7:30 P.M. o a o n D Date: March 20, 1980 x y W City of Newport Beach R01 I_ CALL I I I INDEX Present 1 4x 1x1x1xHx1All Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Glenna Sutton, Secretary Minutes Written By: Glenna Sutton Motion Motion was made to approve the minutes of the re- All Ayes gular Planning Commission meeting;of March 6, 1980, with the revision of the words "long drive- ways" to the words "wide driveway$" on Page 13. Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No. 7, Use Permi All Ayes No. 1927, and Item No. 8, Use Permit No. 1928, to the regular Planning Commission meeting on April 10, 1980, as per the applicants' request. Request to consider amending the Residential De -. Item #1 vel.opment Standards for the R -1, R -2 and R -3 Dis- tricts in Old Corona del Mar and the acceptance of AMEND - an Environmental Document. ME1V1 N0. BXT- INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach RESOLU- �s�i -1- COMMISSIONERS Q Q o C a 0 March 20, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Beek briefly discussed the ballot APPROVED sent around last year, addressing the maximum size building and garage presently:permitted and the maximum size building and garage that would be permitted with the passage of Amendment No. 541. The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Ron Yeo, Architect and Vice- Chairman of the Citizens' Ad Hoc Study Committee for Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that.the Committee consisted of ten Newport Beach citizens, eight of which live in Corona del Mar. He added that the Committee was created and appointed by the City Council. Mr. Yeo then presented slides that illustrated the development of their process, the evaluations and the recom- mendations. Elizabeth Eckhardt, 315 Poinsettia':, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and recommended that the R -1 recommendations of the Committee be ac- cepted by the Planning Commission. L. de Jounge, 208 Marigold, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his feeling that the Committee had missed the point:, which was, a necessary considerable reduction of the volume of the buildable area of the R -1 lotslin Old Corona del Mar. Dr. Nichols, 519 Iris, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and commented that the present allowable building heights were difficult to work with and that the Committee was not given all op- tions. He expressed.his feeling that any decision made should go to the property owners. He also expressed his feeling that outdoor':liveable areas with constrained indoor space next to them lead to outdoor use of large extent, whichleads to a large amount of noise and pollution. He commented that a house designed as the architects wish it designed allows for an R -2, whereas, designed as the owner wishes it designed, does not allow.the R -2. -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 20, 1980 C 0) a o W w D N w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX E n U Virginia Fouts, 307 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that she had been on the Ad Hoc Committee and that they had spent hours on this project. She stated that her only dis.agreement was the open spa�e requirement on a lot to b.e based upon a perce tape basis. as opposed to a specific :square foota�e, as original Yy approved by the Committee. Pauline Godfrey, 306 Marguerite, appeared before the Planning Commission and commended the Commit- tee on their work. She stated her agreement with the majority of Dr. Nichols' statements. Marjorie Nielsen, 707 Marguerite, appeared before the Planning Commission.and requested that the two times the buildable area be retained, due to the shortage of rentals and homes and her fear that the government may come in and force low -in- come housing in Newport Beach. Barry Williams, 306 Hazel, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated his opposition to the down- zoning; however, expressed his feeling that the work of the Committee was well thought out and that he would like to support the recom- mendation that their suggestions be approved. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Yeoto respond to Dr. Nichols' general feeling that the work of the Committee was a disguise to re.turnto R -2. Mr. Yeo responded that this was not their inten- tion or solution, and that the addition of areas provided an impossibility that anyone would try to accomplish all of them. Ron Duncan, Member of the Committee, 230 Larkspur, appeared before the Planning Commission and com- mented that under the current regulations, a third story is now allowed and their proposal was that if the third floor was a viable option, that there would be a penalty for adding thatithird floor which would come out of the second floor, allowing more light, air and open space. -3- C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES X March 20, 1980 wr 3 n w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 117DEX Bert Tarayao, Architect and Member of the Commit - tee, appeared before the Planning Commission and responded to the question on solar area, stating that a greenhouse, to function as an isolated pas sive system, would necessarily have to have glass walls and glass roof before it would qualify for that purpose. In response.to a question posed by Commissioner Balal.is, Mr: Tarayao replied that an active sys- tem is a system with collectors, pumps and tanks that consume energy to move energycollected from the sun, stored and distributed throughout the structure. He further explained that a passive system is one in which the structure acts as a collector, storage and distributor system. He ad ded that the roof and walls would lall have to be glass. • Commissioner Balalis stated that if the Planning Commis.sion's decision is to preserve energy and utilize solar energy, then 150 square feet of sai solar area -should not be included in the build - able area of the site. Commissioner Thomas expressed his jconcern that it is essentially an additional small; room and would be a potential loophole. He stated his prefer- ence to collectors as an active system, rather than a passive system. Mr. Tarayao stated that they are providing for both active and passive systems, as it is not feasible to provide an active system for space - heating purposes, as the collectors would take up a lot of.space. He added that they are pro- posing that domestic hot water be heated off of the collectors, which would not affect square footage. In response to a.question posed by; Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Tarayao replied that if a greenhouse were designed specifically for solar purposes, it would be necessary to have a wall as a division • between that and the house itself, as the walls or floor would be storing the collected energy. ELIE MINUTES March 20, 1980 v N x y City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III Jill I INDEX , Tom Chambers, 702 Larkspur, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated his understanding that the allowance of 150 additional square feet is to.encourage solar heating and is a bonus. Dr. Nichols again appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his feeling that the greenhouse area used as a collector would be un- bearable- without the use of a thermal wall, so that it could not be entirely glass. He stated that he did not understand why this was being en- couraged, rather than another type.of construe= tion. Rose Boreo, 328 Narcissus Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed her feeling that Corona del Mar will always maintain its uni- que character, and that what should be stressed is that the alleys and,garages be.kept clean. • Jeannette Hemmerling, 509 Marigolds appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and posed a'question regarding parking, to which Mr. Duncan replied that the Citizens' Ad Hoc Study Committee is not prepared to answer questions regarding parking at the present time. Mrs. "lielsen again appeared beforelthe Planning Commission and posed a question, t0 which James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that the Ordinance requires that if one hasja lot that is 40' wide or less,,on:e is required to have a 3' side yard and if the lot is more than 40', one is required t.o have a 4' side yard. If one has a wi der lot, one-has riore space to develop and more space in the.side yard than there is with a nar- rower side yard. 0 Dr. Nichols again appeared before the Planning Commission and posed a question regarding.tandem and side yard parking, to which Mr'. Hewicker re- plied that with parking, there would be two pair of tandem parking spaces, but a tandem in the sid yard would not be permitted. -5- COMMISSIONERS rm 5 o ((W March 20, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX In response to a second question posed.by Dr. Nichols, William Laycock, Current Planning Ad- ministrator, replied that in certain cases only three parking: spaces are required:) 1) a single family dwelling exceecki:ng -2,000 sqJ. ft.; or 2) a duplex containing less than 2,500 sq. ft. IMr. Hewicker further explained that the general feeling was that to get a reasonabile number of parking, spaces on the site woulld require e.ither tandem or side yard parking, but that inasmuch as neither solution was entirely adequate, they did not want to require both side yard and tandem parking on the,same parcel. Commissioner Beek commented that several months • ago the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they delete the prohibition on side yard parking and tandem parking on the same lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hewicker replied that by working with the Building Department, they canadequately re- view plans to insure that the spade designated is indeed designed so as to act as a solar col- lector and space heating system, as opposed to just additional square footage. Commissioner Beek suggested that a third floor be permitted in Corona del Mar, provided that its height is limited to 29' average and 32' maximum, provided that its floor area is counted double'an provided that it fits in an 18' by 18' square. Motion x Motion was made that the PlanninglCommission make the finding that they have reviewed and consider- ed the Environmental Document andithe attachments and that the Planning Commission approves Amend- ment No. 541 and recommends that the City Council adopt same. !sue a 5 o w m n "" Ctli 7 N 7 �C ' 7 March 20, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Commis.sioner Beek then gave a general overview of his proposed changes to Amendment No. 541. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Commissioner Beek replied that he felt that the most important issue was the floor area ratio. Motion K Amendment to the Motion was made that the third floor be limited to a maximum of 18' in length in the R -1 and R -2 Districts. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, replied that there are two considerations: 1) whether to listen to a private individual's dis- cussion regarding whether they want a third story on their neighbor's house; or 2) whether to con- sider the general interest of the public. He ad- • ded that use permit provisions require that the Planning Commission consider the public interest, not the private interest. He concluded that re- sorting to use permit procedures will leave in- adequate definable standards on what will be good cause for a third floor and would be creating a system which would cause more prob ems than hav- ing a definable standard that will %pply through - out the .community. 0 Brion Jeannette, an Architect on the Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission and re- viewed various reasons why they made their de- cisions. He reiterated that they were proposing a total of 15' side yard setbacks at the third, level. He stated that it -would be included in the buildable area as two times the actual area, ultimately ending up with a much greater area at the second,.floor for open space.ie expressed his feeling „that'.t,he homeowner should have the opportunity to 1 aaca.te this third floor area in a place which will be advantageous to himself by shifting it anywhere along the allbwable length of a site. -7- COMMISSIONERS w M R March 20, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I I INDEX 0 In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balal.is, Mr. Yea replied that this requirement would be self - limiting and that the actuality of anyone using this option with a. penalty is not that great, because they are gaining only three extra feet in height. Mr. Jeannette added that one of the requirements of a third floor is two legal means from which to exit. Mr. Yeo commented that were someone to build out to the 44' maximum length, they woN d have to tap into consideration. that they would lose: 800 square feet., so that they would eno up with a total area of only 2,200 square feet, which would be a lot of square footage for someone to sacri- fice just to reach the third floor. Motion K Substitute Motion was made that the third.floor be !mss x x K limited to'a.maximum of 24' in length in the R -I N3�s x x x District. Ayes x Amendment to the Motion was then voted on, which Noes x xx x x MOTION FAILED. Motion x Amendment to.the Motion was then made that the Ayes x x second floor shall not exceed 25',.with an average Noes XK x XK building height not to exceed 21'. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that the floor area be no more than a maximum of 1.3 times the buildable area in the R -1 and R -2 Qistricts and that if an individual has two garages and two open parking spaces at the rear, then the two open .parking spaces at the rear do not count as part of the square.footage. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would not sup- port this Amendment to the Motion,.as he felt that the most important part of the public view of mas- sing is not the square footage, but the height. 1111 C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES March 20, 1980 n = m 0 c O W N D 6 I W� 9 City of Newport Beach I_ I INDEX Ayes x Amendment to the Motion was then voted on, which Noes x x x x K x MOTION FAILED. Motion x XK x x XK Amendment to the Motion was made that the.second Ayes x floor shall be limited to the rear 2/3 of the lot. Noes XK x x YX considered the Environmental Document and the at- Motion Amendment to the Motion was made that the word All Ayes "not" be deleted from Item D -5 on Page 5 of Amend- ment No..541. In response to a suggestion by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hewi'ck.er replied that the 8' by 20' parking space is based upon the required width for the side yard and existing closed garage spaces and any change to this requirement would make it im- possible to get the.two required garage spaces on the site, unless at a following public hearing the Planning Commission changes the definition of the term "garage space ". Dion x Substitute Motion was made that the Planning Com- mission recommend to the City Council that they take a ballot of the registered voters of Corona del Mar to determine whether they want their com- munity to be full.duplex or be single family dwel- ling with small apartment. Commissioner Allen stated that she would not sup- port the Substitute Motion, due to her concern that it is a complex thing to understand and that it would be difficult for the citiaens to compre- hend, and that as a ballot measure; it would be confusing to the point of incomprehensible. Ayes x Substitute: Motion was then voted on, which MOTION Noes x x x x FAILED. Ayes x XK x XK Motion was then voted on that the Planning Commis - Noes x sion make the finding that they have reviewed and considered the Environmental Document and the at- tachments and that the Planning Commission approve Amendment No. 541 as follows and recommend that the City Council adopt same: AMENDMENT NO. 541 . DELETE CHAPTER 20.11 AND RECODIFY AS CHAPTER 20.19 "RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS" AMEND CHAPTER 20.19 AS FOLLOWS: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS- WEST NEWPORT AND BALBOA PENINSULA 20.19.010 EFFECT OF CHAPTER. The residential development standards contained in this Chapter shall apply to all dwellings located in the R -1, R -3, and R -4 Residential Districts in GeweRa -del -Maw, West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula as those areas are more particularly described below. Dwellings in those areas shall also be subject to all other provisions of this Title. Where there is a conflict between this Chapter and another provision of this Title, the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling. A--- lke- areas -e #- 6eweea -de }- Maw- 4R- wk4eh- the- prev4S4eRS- a #- tg4s- 6gaptew spa}}- 5e- eeRtwe } }4.RQ- awe -ewe- pawl €ea }aw }y -desew €.bed- as- €e } }ews= That- area- eemmen }y -referred-toe as- gld- Ge:rema -del- Maw, - general }y bedRded-ky-Aveeade -Ave nue;- Pae4f4 e- 6ea.st- H4ggway,- F4fth- AVeRHes- the- easterly- 6sumdary- a #- tke- Gerena- del - Mar- lraet;- the- Pae4 #4e OeeaR; -and- the- Harber- entranee; -and- mere- spee4 €4eal 4y- deser49ed as -that- area-4 neldded-# R- ARRex at4 eR- #3- as- deseribed- 4R- gwd4RaRee • Ne:- 252 - a € - the- 64ty -e €- Newport- Beaeb,- approved -eR- February -27;- }964: B:A. The areas of West.Newport and the Balboa Peninsula in which the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: (Legal Description) 20.19.020 BUILDING. HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA LIMIT. A. In the R -1 District in the area.s of West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula, the total gross floor area, including basements, garages and carports, but excluding decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, contained in all buildings on a building site shall not exceed two times the buildable area of the site. 1R- the -area- des4gRated- as- g }d- 6ereRa -de }- Mar; - the- teta }- Qress- #4eew- area -sqa }} -Rot exeeed-eRe-and-eRe-ha}#-4}-53- tomes - the -5d4 }day }.e - area - a € - the -s4te- For dwellings, the building height limit shall be 24/28 as specified in Chapter 20.02. For accessory buildings, the building height limit shall be 15 feet. B. In the R -3 and R -4 Districts in the areas of West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula, the total gross floor area contained in all buildings on a building site shall not exceed three times the buildable area of the site; provided, however, that floor area devoted to parking within a building or to decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides • shall not be considered in determining the total floor area allowed. -10- Ip- the -area- des #gna €ed- as- Ald- 6erepa -deb -. Mae;. - the- i;ei:a�- grass - €deer • area .- sha ; ;- pet- exeeed -ape -aid- ewe -ha If- 44- 5 }- t4mea- he- bu €lda64e -area of- the -s4te. The height limit in the R -3 District hall be 24/28 feet on the front one -half of the lot and 28/32 feet on the rear one -half of the lot, except where in the opinion of the' Plan ing Commission differences in grade warrant - individual con n. The height limit in the R -4 istrict shall be 28/32 feet as specified in Chapter 20.02. (Ord. 1540 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1754 § 1, 1977: !Ord. 182 4 § 1, 1979) ADD CHAPTER 20.20 "RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - OLD CORONA DEL MAR" AS FOLLOWS: CHAPTER 20.20 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - OLD CORONA DEL MAR Sections: 21..20.010 20.20.020 20.20.030 20.20.040 20.20.050 20.20.060 • 20.20.070 20.20.080 20.20.090 Intent and Purpose Effect of Chapter Building Height Floor Area Limit Yards Parking Open Space Requirements Maximum Allowable Building Length Existing Structures and Permits 20.20.010 INTENT AND PURPOSE. The intent and purpose of this Chapter is to establish development standards for "thee residential areas of Old Corona del Mar which will achieve the goals and objectives as set forth in the General Plan by preserving and maintaining the residential character and living quality of the area. 20.20.020 EFFECT OF CHAPTER. The residential development standards contained in this Chapter.shall apply to all dwellings located in the R -1, R 72, and R -3 Residential Districts in Old Corona del Mar as that area is more particularly described below. Dwellings in this area shall also be subject to.all other provisions of this' Title. Where there is a conflict between this Chapter and another provision of this Title, the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling. A. The area of Old Corona del Mar in which the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: That area commonly referred to as Old Corona del Mar, generally bounded by Avocado Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway, Fifth Avenue, the easterly boundary of the Corona del Mar Tract, the Pacific • Ocean, and-.,the Harbor entrance; and more specifically described as that area included in Annexation #3 as described in Ordinance No. 252 of the City of Newport Beach, approved on February 27, 1924. -11- • 20.20.030 BUILDING HEIGHT. In the R -1 and;R -2 Districts, the following regulations shall apply: A. The maximum building height for first floor development shall not exceed 17 feet, with an average building height not to e.xceed 13 feet. B. The maximum building height for second floor development shall not exceed 29 feet,.with an average building height not to exceed 23 feet. C. The maximum building height for third floor development shall not exceed 32 feet, with an average height not to exceed 29 feet. D. Eaves shall be included in measuring roof heights. In the R -3 District, the height limit shall be 24/28 feet on the front one -half of the lot and 28/32 feet on the rear one -half of the lot, except where in the opinion of the Planning Commission differences in grade warrant individual consideration. 20.20.040 FLOOR AREA LIMIT. A. In the R -1 District, the total gross floor area, including basements, garages, and carports, but excluding debks, balconies, or • patios open on at least two sides or open on one side and unroofed, contained in all buildings on a building site shall not exceed one and one -half (1.5*) -times the buildable area of the site. However, any third floor area above the 23 foot average building height and 29 foot maximum building height shall be counted at two (2.0) times the actual in determining the total allowable buildable area. B. In the R -2 :DI'striet,the total gross floor area, including basements, garages and carports, but excluding decks,. balconies or patios open on at least two sides or open on one side and unroofed, contained in all buildings on a building site shall not exceed one and three - quarters (1.75) times the buildable area,of the site. However, any third floor area above the 23 foot average building height and 29 foot maximum building height shall be counted at two (2.0) times the actual in determining the total allowable buildable area. C. In the R -1 and R -2 Districts, the following areas need not be i.nc.l.uded in the buildable area: 1. 25 square feet of storage area adjacent toior part of a garage, provided that no plumbing is located in said area; 2. 150 square feet of greenhouse - type solar area; 3. 40 square feet of thermal -mass storage -wall area; and • 4. that portion of an undersized 8 foot X 20 foot third parking space on a 30 foot wide lot that encroaches into a side yard setback. -12- D. In the R -3 District, the total gross floor area, including basements, garages and carports, but excluding decks, balconies, or patios open on at least two sides or open on one side and • unroofed, contained in all buildings on a building site shall not exceed three (3.0) times the buildable area of the site. 0 0 20.20.050 YARDS. In the R -1, and R -2 Districts, the following regulations shall apply: A. FRONT YARDS. The minimum width required for front yards shall be 20 feet, except as may be otherwise indicated on the Districting Maps. Distances s.hown on the Districting Maps are to be measured from front property line. B. SIDE YARDS. Each side yard shall not be less tha.n 3 feet wide on a building site 40 feet wide or less, or 4 feet on lots wider than 40 feet; provided, that the side yard on the rear 20 feet of the street side of a corner lot, where there is reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front yard. req.uired or existing o.n the adjacent reversed frontage. However, any third.floor area.abo've the 23 foot average building height and 29 foot maximum building height shall not be less than 15 feet total at both side yards, with a minimum setback of 6, feet at any side yard. C. REAR YARDS. For rear yards, there shall be a! minimum requirement of 10. feet (or 5 feet when abutting an alley). However, any third floor area above the 23 foot average building height.and 29 foot.maximum building height .shall be not less than 15 feet from the rear property line. In the R -3 District, the following regulations shall apply: A. FRONT YARDS. The minimum width required for front yards shall be 2a feet, except as may be otherwise indicated on the Districting Maps. Distances shown..on the Districting Maps are to be measured from front property line. B. SIDE YARDS. Each side yard shall not be less than 3 feet wide on a building site 40 feet wide or less, or 4 feet on lots wider than 40 feet; provided, that the side yard on the rear ,20 feet of the street side of a corner lot, where there is reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on the adjacent reversed frontage. C. REAR YARDS.. For rear yards, there shall be a.mini.mum requirement of 10 feet (or 5 feet when abutting an alley). 20.20.060 PARKING. The parking requirementsshall be as follows: A. In the R -1 District, two spaces for any structure containing less than 2,000 square feet, exclusive of areas devoted to parking or open space; three spaces for any structure containing 2,000 square feet or more, excl.usive of areas devoted to parking or open space. -13- B. In the R -2 District, three spaces for any duplex containing less than 2,500 square feet, exclusive of areas devoted to parking • or open space; four spaces for any duplex containing 2,500 square feet or more, exclusive of areas devoted to parking or open space; provided, however, that the standards contained in• subsection A. above shall apply to any single family dwelling in the R -2 District. C. In the R -3 District, three spaces for any structure containing less than 2,400 square feet, exclusive of areas devoted to.parking or open space, plus one additional space for each 600 square feet or portion thereof; provided, however, that the standards contained in subsection A. above shall apply to any single family dwellingin the R -3 District. D. In addition to the above -noted parking standards the following parking controls shall also apply: 1. For each dwelling unit there shall be a minimum of one covered parking space. 2. For each dwelling unit there shall be a minimum of one independently accessible parking space. 3. Tandem parking up to a maximum of two cars in depth shall be permitted. However, the rear spaces shall be open or carports. 4. Parking in one side yard shall be permitted; provided, however, that structural encroachments shall not be permitted. • 5. Tan.dem parking and parking in a side yard shall both be per- mitted on the same lot. 6. An undersized, 8 foot X 20 foot third parking space shall be permitted on a 30 foot wide lot without'Modifications Committee approval. 20.20.070 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. Open space shall be provided in addition to the required setbacks as follows: A. In the R -1 and R -2 Districts, the following regulations shall apply: 1. First floor - At least 10 percent of the buildable area shall be open space with at least 5 percent of said buildable area to be open from ground to sky. This open space shall have a minimum of at least 6 feet in any direction and may be used for outdoor living area. 2. Second floor (or above a maximum height of. 17 feet, with an average height of 13 feet) a. At least 35 percent of the buildable area shall be open space • in the R -1 District; and at least 12.5; percent of the buildable area shall be open space in ;the R -2 District. -14- b. At least 150 square feet of said area. shall be at the front of the site. If any portion!is a balcony or a deck, the open space shall be open to the front and to one side. This open space shall have a minimum dimension of at least 6 feet in any direction, and shall also be open to the sky, except is permitted. in subsection c. below. c. All other balconies or decks shall have a minimum dimension of at least 6 feet in any direction, and shall be open on at least one side of the lot and to the sky, except for the following permitted encroachments: (1) eaves, with a maximum overhang of 2 feet; and (2) a maximum of 25 percent of the reamining "clear" area to be covered with open beams but with no less than 80 percent open. B. In the R -3 District, at least 150 square feet of open space shall be at the front of the site, located on the second floor (or above a maximum height of 17 feet, with an average building heightof 13 feet). If any portion is a balcony or a deck, the open space shall be open to the front and to one side. This open space shall have.a minimum dimension of at least 6 feet in any direction. and shall also be open to the sky, except as permitted in A., 2., c., above. 20.20.080 MAXIMUM.ALLOWABLE BUILDING LENGTH.' In the R -1 and R -2 Districts, the following regulations shall apply: A. A maximum building height of 13 feet at the side yard setback shall be permitted for the entire buildable length of the lot. B. Side yard walls in excess of 13 feet in height up to 20 feet (including walls within 4 feet of the side setback line) shall be permitted a maximum length of 90 percent of the buildable length of the lot. C. Side yard walls in excess of 20 feet in heightA including walls within 4 feet of the side setback line) shall be permitted a maximum length of 35 percent of the buildable length of the lot in the R -1 District, and a maximum length of 40 percent of the buildable length of the lot in the R -2 District. D. Third floor development (a maximum building height of 32 feet, with an average height not to exceed 29 feet) shal] be permitted a maximum building length of 44 feet, to be located :no closer to the front or rear of the lot than those portions of the building where the eaves are higher than an average height of 13 'feet. 20.20.090 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND PERMITS. A. Structures which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance, and which do.not, conform to these regulations may be continued or altered; providedthat the changes do not result in a greater nonconformity than was existing. -15- B. Structures for which building permits have been issued, or for which use permits, variances, or modifications have been issued on • the effective date of this ordinance, and which donot conform to these regulations may be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 20.13 IN THE .R- 11DISTRICT TO PROVIDE PROPER CROSS REFERENCE TO APPROPRIATE SECTIONS IN CHAPTERS 20.19 AND 20.20. AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS PROPER CROSS REFERENCE AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS CROSS REFERENCE TO APP AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS PROPER CROSS REFERENCE n LJ OF TO OF ROP OF TO CHAPTER 20.15 IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS CHAPTER 20.16 IN THE RIATE SECTIONS IN CHA CHAPTER 20.17 IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS -16- R -2 DISTRICT TO PROVIDE IN CHAPTERS 20.19 and 20.20. R- 3!DISTRICT TO PROVIDE PTERS 20 19 and 20.20. R- 4DISTRICT TO PROVIDE IN CHAPTER 20.19. COMMISS{ONERS d U:) om2i F( March 20, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Motion All Ayes • 0 Motion was made to continue Agendas Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 1931, to the regular Planning Com- mission meeting of April 10, 1980,; as per the applicant's request. Request to permit interior and exterior altera- tions to an existing building with the following existing non- conforming features:; 1) A portion of the existin structure encroaches to the rear property line where the Ordinance requires a 10 foot rear yard when abutting an al!ley); 2) A dwelling unit is located on the socond floor of. the existing building; 3) No on-site parking spaces exist for.the commercial portion of the structure. No new interior spaceis being added in conjunction with the proposed remodeling. LOCATION: Lot 2, Block L, Tract 323, located at 2610 East Coast'Highway, on the easterly side of East Coast High- way, between Dahlia Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue in:Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Ernest George, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as Applicant The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Ernest George, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurredwith the Condi- tions as indicated in the Staff Raport. In response to a question posed b� Commissioner Thomas, Mr. George replied that his building does not encroach into another buildin , that the one person who objected is on Lot 15,which building is built to the alley and is also encroaching, but is an existing condition. He added that his is i -17- Item #2 MODIFI- CATION NO. 2502 DENIED COMMISSIONERS p3 SO 5 0 ((app �+ 3 N Jc Vl March 20, 1980 Citv of NewDOrt Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 0 0 an existing condition which he intends to upgrade and bring up to code. In response to a question posed byCommissioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Modifications Committee is the agency charged with the respon- sibility of reviewing and acting u0on modifica- tions and that the Modifications Committee recom- mendation is subject to call -up byeither the Planning Commission or the City Council. He added that in this particular case the City Council called it up and referred it to the Planning Com- mission for their review. He concluded that the City Counci].called it up because there is a non- conformity on the existing structure; that is, the encroachment into the alley setback. In response to a question posed byCommissioner Beek, Mr. George replied that the (building was built 30 years ago and that it is a formality that they must go before the Modificatiions Committee for an approval of alterations. In respons.e..to a question posed by. Commissioner Thomas, Mr. George replied that the nature of this store was such that these alterations would not increase vehicular use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek regarding enforcing in-lieu parking fees at a later date, Robert Burnham, Assistant City At- torney, replied that a condition biased upon a speculation of something that might happen in the future could not be enforced at a !future time, based on present circumstances. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. George replied that he City Council had allowed him only ..5 t mes the buildable acreage on.his adjoininj property,_ but that he_.wo.uld'be willing to p ovide the !parking.for. this project, if he w re :allowed W COMMISSIONERS iu _a %w Su N F 4 March 20, 1980 Pei MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 11 0 to build at 1.0 times the buildablle acreageon his adjoining property. Commissioner Balalis expressed hi$ concern regard ing the additional need for parking that may be created upon the approval of this application. In response to a comment Mr. George expressed his not be a great volume of proposed alterations. He that this area has less o th C by Commissioner Balalis, feeling that there would people as a result of hi expressed his feeling f a parking problem than any o er area �n orona 14, 1 Mar.; In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Burnham replied that the area of the law regarding parking has been established for quite some time and is prior non- conforming rights. He explained that a person has the right to build a structure in reliance upon the code . requirements then existing, and if code require- ments are continually changed and people are forced to make the changes to their structures in accordance with each code requirement, this is getting into an area in which a law of subsequent enactment affects a building thatiwas constructed long before it was enacted. He spressed that the real issue is whether there is a different inten- sity of use by virtue of the.subdvision'of a single store into three different stores.. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Burnham replied that to impose in -lieu fees at a later date would not be!a workable solu- tion to the parking situation. Hp explained that, it would not be a workable soluti n because it would be a matter of imposing a c ndition on an individual without having the.par ing space and it would be imposing a condition n an individual who may transfer, sell or convey ,he property and there may be a necessary procedure involved of -19- COMMISSIONERS 9 0 9 o W March 20, 1980 M Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI III Jill INDEX Motion 0 imposing this on the ed as a condition of parking agreement. next individual. approval imposing He suggest an offsite Karen Childs, daughter of the ownerof Karen Mo- greta Imports', appeared before the iPla.nning Com- mission and expressed her feeling that the build- ing is a large one and is more than adequate for more than one store. She added that they do not have the kind of clientele that wouTd present a parking problem. Frank Jank, Owner of the Hearthstonle Store, appeared before the Planning Commission and state that a small specialty store in Corona del Mar does. not produce a large amount of !traffic. Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "B" of the Staff - Report and Deny Modification No. 2502. Commissioner Beek expressed his support of the Motion, but stated his preference to granting per mission to the applicant if he would agree to pay in -lieu fees when they are established for City parking in that area. Commissi:one.r Balalis stated that he would oppose the Motion, due to his feeling that Corona del Mar does not have a parking problem. Ayes K X x x Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Noes x x Request to permit the construction of a two story office building exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area in a Specific Area Plan wherea specific plan has not been adopted, and the 'acceptance of an Environmental Document. A portion of the re- quired offstreet parking spaces arE proposed to be located on the roof of the proposed structure. A modification to the Zoning Code is also request ed, since a portion of the offstreet parking spaces and related landscape plant$r areas en- croach to the rear property line (Where the Or- dinance requires a 10 ft. rear yard when a lot in -20- Item #3 USE PER- MIT NO. 19 0 FORWARD- ED TO CITY rUl1CIL MINUTES March 20, 1980 0 ° D Citv of Newport Beach 7 N J� N x N 7 ROLL CALL INDEX the C -1 District abuts an alley). The proposed development also includes the construction of a 3 ft. high landscape planter that encroaches in- to the North Newport right-of-way, ;adjacent to the site. LOCATION: Lot Nos. 12 and 13, iTract No. 1136 located at 350 North! Newport Boule- vard, on the southerly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Beacon Street, adjacent toNewport Heights. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Lee & Strock Architects, Inc., New - port Beach OWNER: Herbert Sutton, Newport Beach Commissioner Allen posed a question to which James Hewi.cker, Planning Director, ':replied that there has been concern among the people in Newport Heights regarding,traffic and the encroachment of commercial traffic into a residential area. The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item. and Arthur Strock, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated his concurrence with the conditions as indicated in the Staff Re- port. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, replied that the cars on the roof wlould be visibl from the alley, but that all the houses on Holm - wood are single story homes and th cars on the roof would not be visible from the a homes. Commissioner Allen stated her unde standing that the parking structure is on the roof, but at the alley level it is at grade, to which James Hewicker, Planning Director, agreed. -21- C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES 9 March 20, 1980 =�a0 p3 � `� w X W D City of Newport Beach H 7 R 7C ip 7 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Strock added that the garages are on grade, level with the alley and the houses: themselves Pre between three to five feet above alley grade. Mr. Webb added that the roof slopes: away from the alley and there is a 2' drop in elevation between the alley and the front of the parkling area. Mr. Strock stated that they had tried to minimize -22- the mass of the building wherever possible by sloping the roof away from the street frontage on Old Newport Boulevard and Westmiinster Avenue and away from the alley. In response to a comment made by Colmmissioner. Beek, Mr. Strock replied that the net buildable area is 12,000 sq. ft. and that thly are incorpor ating 10,000 sq. ft. of enclosed, useable space o the si.te', so that.the floor area ratio is s.omewha • less than one times the buildable area. In response to a question posed by t ommissioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that the; amount of square footage of the first floor is 4,400 square feet and the amount of square footage on the se- cond floor is 5,400 square feet. Commissioner Beek stated his undersitanding that they are at about .8 of the net bui':ldable on the office uses. In response to another question posed by Commis- sioner Beek; Mr. Strock stated that they are tak- ing advantage of an unusual topography to tuck a building into a site and to use arghitectural de- vices to minimize the mass further.: In response to a comment made by C mmissioner Thomas.regarding domestic hot wate solar heat - ing, Mr. Strock replied that in a uilding of this sort, the demand for hot wate is minimal and solar heating would exceed the .cost of having an on- demand flash heater directly beneath the lavatory and the flash heater would be more energ efficient. -22- K Q-q0m 3 O W CO VI J 3 41 JC Vl 0 0 MINUTES March 20, 1980 City of Newport Beach In response to a comment made by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Strock replied that this building has a number of passive devices built into it in terms of thermal insulation. He added that they are providing a light trap and distributing that light to the second floor. He stated that. they have windows which bring in shaded ambient light in the afternoon and a light well on the second floor which "will send light down to the ground floor in areas where there are no windows. Commissioner Thomas suggested that they make a po licy change and request a study oflenergy con- servation-on projects. In response to a comment made by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hewicker replied that it is not re- quired by the State Building Code that energy counts be recorded. Commissioner Balalis requested that when the en- ergy counts are.completed and the applicant sub- mits them to.the City, that he be allowed to see the results, as a matter of personal interest. Tom Baker, 413.Holmwood, appeared efore the Plan ning Commission and st.ated.that th7s area is a transition area;. that is, an area in which com- mercial property is separated from.the residentia area by an alley, and that there i a natural slope barrier that allows for a bu fer zone be- tween the commercial and the residential. He ad- ded that the way in which the building is con- structed on the lots is below the level of the residential houses on Holmwood andthe parking is on one of the adjacent lots, so that the parking is out of view of the residential area. He ex- pressed his feeling that the proposed roof park- ing would be detrimental to the residential area as it would be part of the view that was pre- viously unobstructed. He stated h s objection to the encroachment of the parking; spaces into -23- INDEX C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES March 20, 1980 arm C) N 5 N r! City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 0 n U the easement areas. He expressed his feeling that if there must be roof parking; that the ac- cess should be from Old Newport Boulevard, not the alley. In response to a question posed byCommissioner Allen, Mr.. Webb replied that it was necessary for vis.abil.ity purposes that the parking spaces slope away from the alley, becauseif the land- scaping were adjacent to the alley; it would have been difficult for the cars enteri6g and exiting to see one another. In response to a second question posed by Commis- sioner Allen., Mr. Webb replied that the lands.cap- ing was not across the entire rear.of the pro- perty, but only on one side and one island in the center between the two parking -areas and a small piece at the end. He added that the land - scaping would necessarily have to be a tall tree for the neighbors to see the landscaping, which would impair visibility. Mr. Baker expressed his primary concern regarding the traffic and noise. . In response to a question posed by�Commissioner Allen, Mr. Srock replied that it ould not be possible to have access.from some place other than the alley, as it is a very small site and a ramp system from Old Newport Boulevard, Westmin- ster Boulevard or Beacon Street wopld involve 4 of the site in ramping alone, to,climb that level of grade. In response to a question posed by Beek, Mr. Strock replied that norm fice building.with air conditionin heating, there is required 13' flb industry norm with a 9' ceiling) s pure would be 26', plus a 3' parap of 29'. He added that this buildi because: 1) they tried to give th -24- Commissioner lly on an of- and central r to floor (an that the fi- t, for a total g is higher building a MINUTES March 20, 1980 X m �5 �07 di> 0 x y � 1 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX residential appearance; 2) they wanted to bring in light to serve the middle of the!; building; and 3) the pitched ceiling is a valuable amenity for the employees because of the distribution of light. He also commented that they have mixed the building to reduce the bulk of ;the building on the second floor and reduced the' visual en- croachment on the alley and the.houses behind. TCommissioner Beek stated his preference that the parking. be on the first floor and that the office space be on the second floor and that the height he 29', maximum. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission Deny Use Permit No. 1930, so that the applicant can redesign the building to provide for limiting the parking to the first floor and to liimit the height of the building to 29'. • Commissioner Allen stated that shewould not sup- port the Motion, but could not support the build- ing as it is presently designed. She stated her preference that access to the roofjparking be tak- en off Old 'Newport Boulevard. i Mr. Stro.ck stated his preference that the Planning Commission deny this application rather than con- tinue it with the possibility of redesigning it, as he saw no feasible way to provide access to the roof parking from the street, onto redesign. Motion X Substitute Motion was made that thq Planning Com- mission make the findings as indicted in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approvd. Use Permit No. 1930, subject to the conditions aslindicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report. Commissioner Thomas stated his pre erence that the building be redesigned. Ayes x x Substitute Motion was then voted o which MOTION Noes x x Ix FAILED. Abstain 0 -25- C MISSIONERS1 � w W MINUTES March 20, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Substitute Motion was made that the Planning Com- Motion x mission "Deny Use Permit No. 1930, vhich MOTION Ayes x x FAILED. Noes x x x x Ayes > Motion was then voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Noes x x x x x x Motion x Motion was then made that the Planning Commission All Ayes forward Use Permit No. 1930 to theiCity Council with the Planning Commission's comments and votes. Request to establish one building site and elimi- Item #4 nate an interior lot line where two lots now exist . so as to permit the construction of an office RESUB- building and related offstreet parking spaces on DIVISION the property. LOCATION: Lot Nos. 12 and 13,Tract No. 1136, WITH- located at.350 Nortll Newport Boule DRAWN vard,`on the southerly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Beacon Street, adjacent toNewport Heights. 0 ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Lee & Strock Architects, Inc., New port Beach OWNER:, Herbert Sutton, New}ort Beach ENGINEER: Stephen A. Runk, Ne�port Beach Motion was made to withdraw this item, as a resub- division is not necessary for the proposed office development on the site. A review of Planning Department records indicates that the Planning Commission approved Resubd.ivision to. 405 on Sep - tember 6, 1973,.that permitted the creation of one building site on the property in question. The tentative parcel map was subsequently recorded -26- 0 o s p N 7 N CD V1 March 20, 1980 Of t Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX , Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes • in the County Recorder's Office oni.February 4, 1974 (Parcel Map 58 -23). x I I Motion was made to continue Agenda', Amendment No. 542, and Agenda Item'i, Plan to the regular Planning Comm] of April 24, 1980. i x x Request to consider an amendment tc of the Newport Beach Municipal Codc to permitting residential uses in trict, and the acceptance of an En, cument. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Motion was made to continue this i lateness of the hour. Item No. 5, No. 9, Phasing scion meeting Chapter 20.42 as it pertain he M -1 -A Dis- - ironmental Do- Beach tem, due to the Request to establish a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in an existi�g building in Design Plaza in the C -0 -H District: LOCATION: Parcel No. 5,.Parcel Map 36 -35 (Re subdivision No. 289 located at 240 Newport Center rive, in Block 200 of Newport Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: Robert J. Lorenzett , Zetti's Place, Inc., Newpor Beach OWNER: Consolidated Invest rs, Orange i Motion was made to continue this 4em, as per the applicant's request. j i -27- Item #5 AMEND- MENT NO. 542 CONTIN- UED TO APRIL 24, 1980 Item #6 USE PER - MMT N0. 1931 CONTIN- UED TO ATRIL 10, EM COMMISSIONERS �0 xou a> foil 7 March 20, 1980 itv of Beach MINUTES ROLLCALL111 I Jill JINDEX , Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes x Request to establish a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in Lido Marina Village where commercial space now exists.! LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 63 -11 (Resubdivision No. 447) located at 3448 Via Oporto on the north- easterly side of Via Oporto, east- erly of Central Avenue in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Christopher Marshaldba: Cafe Lido Beverly Hills OWNER: R.& B Enterprises, Inc., Los An- geles Motion was made to continue this item, as per the owner's request. Request to establish a restaurant acility with on =sale beer and wine in Lido Mari a Village where commercial space now exists.: LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 125, located at 3431 Via Oporto, onithe southwest- erly side of Via Oporto, northerly of Via Lido in LidolMarina Village ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Barro's Inc., Anahe, OWNER: Lido Marina Village) Newport Beach Motion was made to continue this item, as per the owner's request. am Item #7 USE PER - MIITT P0. 1927 CONTIN- UED TO APRIL 10, 1 8�0 Item #8 USE PfR- MI CONTIN- UED TO APRIL 10, 1 80 C MISSIC)NERS1 MINUTES March 20, 1980 �0 db City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX i i Request to consider a Phasing Planjfor the remain Item #9 ing development in Office Site C of the Koll Cen- ter Planned.Community, and the acceptance of an PHASING Environmental Document. PLAN LOCATION: Office Site C of the Planned Com- CONTIN- munity of Koll Center Newport, lo- UED TO cated.easterly of MacArthur Boule- APRIL 24, vard between Campus ;Drive and Birct 1980 Street. i ZONE: P -C j. APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, !Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue this item, due to the Ayes lateness of the hour. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDI- TIONAL Motion x Motion was made that Commissioners McLaughlin and BUSINESS Ayes K x x x x Balalis be excused from the regula Planning Com- Abstain x X mission meeting on April 10, 1980.1 There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 12:00 a.m.! D bra Allen, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • I i i -29-