Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1982COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - PLACE: City Council Chambers i TIME: 7:30 p.m. - m 5 DATE: April 8, 1982 W ro City of Newport Beach C tWl ALI INDEX X'X IX 14 X' XI XI All Present. � • x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney _ STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of March 18, 1982 Motion x Motion was made for approval of the Minutes of March All Ayes X X. X X X X' X 18, 1982, as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that Items No. 3 and 4 - Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 2066, be continued so that proper notice can be given to all property owners within 300 feet of the property, including owners and residents of the Towers. Motion x I Motion was made to continue the Traffic Study and Use A11 Ayes X X x X X X X Permit No. 2066 to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 6,- 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. Chairman McLaughlin referred to Items No. 8 and 9 - Use Permit No. 2074 , and Use Permit No. 2075, relating to electronic game centers, and suggested that these items be continued until such time as the City Council has considered the proposed Skill Games Ordinance. -1- DMMISSIONERS April 8, 1982 F11-1[ City. of Newport Beach MINUTES 1MLL CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Commission has the right to continue these items for a reasonable period of time to allow. the City Council to review and take action on the proposed ordinance. Motion X Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2074 and Use All Ayes X X X X X Permit No. 2075 to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 20, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED.. Request to amend Chapter 20:73, Residential Condominium Projects, of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach �. Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this item. He also discussed the memorandum dated April 2, 1982; from the Building Director, Mr. Raimar Schuller, which outlined the typical requirements for the inspection of a converted unit. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the additional sheet relating to Section 20.73.019, the Physical Elements Report. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff is suggesting that the physical elements report be added, to make it clear that such a. report shall be done. He also stated that the suggested criteria for the Planning Commission or City Council review is included in the additional sheet as Section 20.72.016. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Planning. Commission and City Council will have discretionary .powers over the approval of a requested use permit for a condominium conversion. • IIIIIIII r1d rf.1 April 8, 1952 X e m S m x w. 3 City. of Newport Beach Commissioner Beek stated that since the total number of conversions shall not exceed five percent of the City's total stock of duplex to fourplex units in a given calendar year, he suggested that further criteria should be added which would aid the Commission in determining which units should be converted. He suggested that the additional criteria should include the character of the neighborhood, size of the lot and size of the unit. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Ms. Deborah Holly, resident of 213 30th Street and student representative from the University of California at Irvine, stated that the proposed ordinance will significantly reduce the rental housing stock in Newport Beach.. Mr. Dick Hogan, representing Properties West, referred to Section 20.73.016 which lists the criteria for Planning Commission or City Council review and stated . that Item Nos. 4) Proximity to public schools, parks and recreation areas, neighborhood shopping centers, and public transit; and 5) Provision of on -site amenities such as swimming pools, spas, balconies, decks, and open space, are not appropriate criteria as a justification for denying. a conversion. otherwise, he stated that they are in support of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Barnett Larks, resident of 1901 Beryl Lane, and Vice - President of Friends of Oasis Senior Citizen Center, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Larks stated that he concurs with Mr. Hogan in that Item Nos. 4 and 5 would apply to a rental or an ownership unit and therefore would not be appropriate criteria to include. Mr. Larks stated that there is no evidence to indicate that the conversion of these units will make them affordable and available to the first time home buyers. He again expressed his concern that additional rental' units must be made available to the displaced renters. He stated that the senior citizens would have no objections to the 'proposed ordinance if these additional rental units were to be produced and made available. _3- i MINUTES INDEX I ion Pes Noes April 8, 1982 W a m m N 3 City of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis stated that the Planning Commission will be discussing the Housing Element Implementation - Density Increases on May 6, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. and suggested that Mr. Larks attend. Commissioner Beek referred to Page 4 of the proposed ordinance and suggested that the word "more ",be added to the first paragraph. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the paragraph read, "if such modification or waiver will have no greater adverse impact on adjacent properties or structures than strict compliance with.these..standards ".. Commissioner Beek then referred to Page.3, paragraph B) of Section 20.73.025 and stated that the 5,000 square foot requirement should be included in the ordinance. He stated that deletion of this requirement would allow sub- standard units to occur and would drastically alter the character of the City. JXJJJ Motion was made. to include the 5,000 square foot X requirement in paragraph B) of Section 20.73.025, which X ..X.X MOTION FAILED. V I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner I i Balalis, Planning Director explained the past and present parking requirements for a duplex unit. Commissioner Balalis asked if the converted units will have to comply with the open space option. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the ordinance requires that the converted units comply with the zoning regulations as they exist today, unless the Planning Commission, with a four- fifths vote, waives the. open space requirement. Commissioner Balalis referred to Section 20.73.019, Physical Elements Report, and stated that it will be difficult to determine the condition of the sewer system and its remaining useful life. He.also stated that there will probably not be a rush of conversion applications, because he estimated that over one -half of the existing units will not be able to meet the criteria for a conversion. • IIIIIIII MINUTES INDEX CALL Motion Ayes Abstain Motion f m 6 m M Substitute on X s I xxx *I s IX Motion Ayes Noes 0V X April 8, 1982 of Newoort Beach Motion was made to include Section 20.73.019, Physical Elements Report, as indicated in the additional sheet, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Allen referred to Section 20.73.015, relating to. Planning Commission or City Council review and stated that these criteria will be utilized in evaluating the conversion projects. She stated that Item Nos. 4 and 5 should be included in the ordinance, because the Commission should have the opportunity to consider these criteria. Motion was made to include Section 20.73.016, Planning Commission.or City Council Review, including Item Nos. 4 and.5 as indicated in the additional sheet. Substitute Motion was made to include - Section 20.72.016, Planning Commission or City Council Review, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 only, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Allen moved for an additional clause within the ordinance which would apply only to condominium conversions involving additions of square footage to the existing living .space, not to include the parking. If the condominium conversion project includes additions of square footage in existing living space, the total size of the project shall be limited to 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot, or the size of the building presently, if it is more than 1.5 times the buildable area. Commissioner King stated that each conversion project should be considered on its own merits, and therefore he could not support the additional clause as suggested by Commissioner Allen. .Commissioner Balalis concurred with Commissioner King. Motion by Commissioner Allen as stated above, was now voted on, which MOTION FAILED. - - -5- MINUTES INDEX e x s r � W �m :m April 8, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1078, approving RESOLUTION Ayes X X X X X Amendment No. 568, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. NO..1078 Noes X X (See attached Exhibit "A" for the text of the approved Chapter 20.73 for Residential Condominium Projects). Request to permit the construction -of a single family residential dwelling on property located in the C -1 -H District where a portion of the development exceeds the basic height .limit..within the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District, and the acceptance ..of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 59 -6 (Resubdivision No. 418), located at 1900 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from • the Balboa Bay Club. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT. Ficker & Ruffing Architects, Newport Beach . OWNER: Tract 1210, Ltd., Corona del Mar Ll The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. William P. Ficker, architect for the proposed project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Picker distributed to the Commission, his letter dated April 8, 1982, which addressed various aspects of. the proposed project. Mr. Ficker presented aerial photographs and colored drawings which depicted the site and the surrounding existing land uses. He stated that. the proposal provides for dramatic under - development to the property, as well as a dramatic reduction in the traffic that would be generated by any other development He also stated that the proposal is far more compatible with the adjacent park and residential property. April 8, 1982 3 � m m m m w City of Newport Beach Mr. Ficker stated that this piece of property is most unique in its shape and location. He stated that the proposal will be an extremely compatible development with the surrounding area and all of the neighboring properties. He stated that it will also provide an opportunity for urban living, while generously under - developing the property. Mr. .Ficker referred to Exhibit "B ", Condition of Approval No. 6, and stated that this is an extensive condition which would be more appropriate at the time of the ultimate widening of West Coast Highway. Commissioner Balalis asked what size of building the applicant could build without obtaining discretionary approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Ficker stated that a building of approximately 18,000 to 20,000 square feet could be built upon the site. Commissioner Allen stated that the Initial Study • indicates that there will be no view blockage of the water from the existing residences and the park site. She then stated that she would like to be assured that this information is correct. Mr. Ficker stated that the lowest portion of the park may experience some view obstruction. He stated that they would be willing to move the glass sound screen back into the building envelope. He stated that the glass sound screen is the only portion of the project which exceeds the height limit. Mr. Dick Stevens, the property owner, stated that he has owned this property since 1968. He expressed his concern with the 12 -foot right -of -way dedication and stated that this is a major economic consideration. He stated that he is agreeable in grading the front of the property for the ultimate' widening of West Coast Highway, but suggested that the requirements of the retaining wall and sidewalk be deleted. He stated that they have designed a landscaping plan which will blend well with the bluff and the surrounding environment. Mr. Stevens referred to Exhibit "B ", Condition of Approval No. 5, and stated that he would be willing to convey his interest in the 12 foot right -of -way of West Coast Highway to be dedicated to the City, but cannot convey the interest of the lessees on the property. -7- MINUTES INDEX • lJ -- April 8, 1982 n71 r c m � W City of Newport Beach c n m w In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the applicant is being required to grade the front portion of the property and construct the retaining wall because the structure will be located within four feet of the new right -of -way line and the City does not want to assume the responsibility and liability of grading and excavating the widened West Coast Highway to within four.feet of the structure. Mr. Stevens stated that he would be agreeable to granting a 15 -foot wide construction easement. He also stated that he would be willing to post a bond in order to provide for this easement and hold the City harmless. Mr. Webb stated that such an agreement would be adequate. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Ficker explained the elevations of the proposed project. Mr. Ficker also stated that because the applicant will be dedicating the front 12 feet of .the property to the City, the structure had to be stepped further up into the bluff. Mr. .Ron Rebal, resident of 1821 Kings Road, the property immediately above the proposed project, expressed his concern with the view obstruction of the proposed project in relationship to his residence. He also expressed his concern with the lifestyle of a 7,000 square foot house that contains no front, side or backyards. He stated that the entire outside activity of the proposed project will take place on the roof. Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Rebal if he is concerned with the view of the water or with the view of the proposed rooftop. Mr. Rebal stated that he is concerned with both of the views. He urged that these view obstructions be thoroughly evaluated before further action is taken. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Rebal stated that he would prefer a residential use of this type at this location, rather than a commercial use. CM MINUTES INDEX -- - - - - April 8, 1982 � r � City. of Newport Beach Mr. Thomas O'Keefe, attorney representing Beverly Ray of Beverly and Partner, appeared before the Commission. Mr. O'Keefe referred to Ms. Ray's letter dated March 12, 1982, and stated that there has been no division of land between the property in question and the property located at 1800 W. Coast Highway in which Ms. Ray has.a long -term lease. Therefore, he stated that the applicant has no right to build upon the property, until his client's lease has terminated, which is not until 1987. Mr.- O'Keefe expressed their concerns relating. to the impacts on the parking and the surrounding land uses. He stated that the proposed application will not be architecturally compatible with the area and will be an intrusion into the coastal bluff. He stated that the application violates the 65 CNEL provision. He also stated that the view from the park site will be impacted by this proposal. • 1,11111 In response to a question posed by Chairman McLaughlin, Mr. Bob Burnham,. Assistant City Attorney, stated that this application does not constitute a subdivision of.these parcels. Mr. Burnham also stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the lease at length. Mr. James Sawyer, resident of 306 Snug Harbor Road and Director of the Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sawyer referred to their letter of opposition dated March 17, 1982. He expressed their concerns relating to the height of the proposed structure, the excavation of the cliff area, and the inconsistency of the proposed structure to the surrounding area. Mr. Stevens stated that the matter relating to the lease as mentioned by Mr. O'Keefe, is irrelevant to these proceedings. He stated that the parking in the area will not be impacted due to this project. He also stated that the plan is extremely sensitive to the bluff area. Mr. William Ray, stated that his wife, Beverly Ray, is the tenant being referred to at 1800 West Coast Highway. He stated that the prior City Attorney.had � IIIIIIII -9_ MINUTES INDEX r1 U Motion All Ayes • WIN � r � v m 3 7c W > April 8, 1982 of Newport Beach reviewed the lease. He stated that his wife has leased this property for 7' years and does not want to be bought out of it. He stated that the lease in question is in effect until 1987. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Burnham stated that based upon the information which has been submitted, the Commission can act upon this application. Commissioner Allen stated that she would like assurances from the applicant that the views will not be obstructed. She.. suggested that the applicant present this project to the neighbors of the area and the Cliff Haven Community- Association; in order to clear up any misconceptions relating to the project. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission is more concerned with the preservation of public views, not. necessarily private views. He requested that the applicant provide information which would assure the Commission that the proposed residential development will not substantially obstruct views of the bay from the public park adjacent to the site. Mr. Burnham requested that Mr. O'Keefe and Mrs. Ray, forward any information to the .City Attorney's Office, which they feel impacts this application and the right of the Planning Commission to take action on this project. Mr. Stevens stated that they could build a model of the project which would depict the proposed structure in relationship to the surrounding area.. Balalis stated that a model is not needed,. but suggested that the applicant run a balloon test on the site during the next week. X Motion was made to continue this item, Use Permit No. X X X X X X 1986, to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1982, in order for the applicant to prepare information to assure the Commission that the proposed residential. development would not substantially obstruct views of the bay from the public park adjacent to the site, which MOTION CARRIED. -10- MINUTES INDEX April 8, 1982 MINUTES F N City. of Newport- Beach INDEX Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with (Item #3 the development of a 41,494 sq. ft. i marine office and retail commercial center. t&lup Request to permit the construction of a marine office and retail commercial center in the Recreational Marine AND Commercial Area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area which exceeds the basic height limit of 26 feet in the 26/35 Foot Height. Limitation District and contains - - a greater gross floor area than .5 times the buildable Item #4 area of the site. The proposal also includes. a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car, spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an USE PERMIT environmental document. N0. 2066 • LOCATION:. A portion of Lot G, and Lot M, Tract No. 919, located at 3101 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Continu Riverside Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile to May Specific Plan Area. 1982 ZONE: - SP -5 APPLICANTS: Richard V. Valdes and M.V. Threinen, Irvine Motion All Ayes r1 OWNERS:. Same as applicants Planning Director Hewicker suggested that Items No. 3 and 4 - Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 2066, be continued so that proper notice can be given to all property owners within '300 feet of the property, including owners and residents of the Towers. Motion was made to continue the Traffic Study and Use. xxx Permit No. 2066 to the.Planning Commission Meeting of May 6, -1982, which MOTION CARRIED. -11- N�MISSIONERS April B, 1982 m m m x H City of Newport Beach c z v w MINUTES IIIIIIII IMLL CALL I I I I 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Request to amend a previously approved use permit establishing a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in the C -1 District, so as to change the hours of .operation to include the service of food and beverages at lunch time during the week. LOCATION: Lot 53, Block B, Tract No. 673, located at 3840 East - Coast - Highway. on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Hazel Drive and Seaward Road in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 .. -.I I .I i I -I I APPLICANT: Mitsuo Ueno, Costa Mesa.. OWNER: -Duca McCoy, Corona del Mar The public hearing opened in connection with this item • and Mr.. George Vogel, representing the applicant,' requested approval of this application so as to change the hours of operation to include the service of food and beverages at lunch time during the week. He stated. that the request is to have only the sushi bar area open which seats 13 persons.. • 'In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Vogel stated that the restaurant closes for business at 12:00 midnight. Commissioner Beek stated that the .previous minutes indicate that the closing hour shall be at 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Kurlander expressed his concern that the parking in the area may be impacted by the lunch time proposal. Mr. Vogel stated that the engineering business at this location only has two full time employees and a very limited walk -in business. He also stated that the owner of the engineering business, Mr. Peter Duca, lives within one block of the office and walks to work. . He stated that Mr. Duca has sent a letter to the Planning Commission dated March 3,. 1982, supporting this request. -12- Item #5 USE PERMIT N0. 2006 Amended DENIED 1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as adequate parking is not available for the existing 'commercial use and the proposed restaurant facility during regular business hours of the week. • The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. • r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 8., 1982 Request to waive a portion of the required off- street Item #6 m x City of Newport Beach . LL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 2006 (Amended) Ayes X X X X The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a third on -site parking space to USE PERMIT with the following finding, which MOTION CARRIED: Noes X Abstain adjacent to an alley where only two spaces presently X FINDING: 1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as adequate parking is not available for the existing 'commercial use and the proposed restaurant facility during regular business hours of the week. • The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. • r -13- * Request to waive a portion of the required off- street Item #6 parking in conjunction with the expansion of an existing commercial building which is non - conforming relative to the amount of off - street parking provided. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a third on -site parking space to USE PERMIT NO. 2072 encroach into the required 10 foot rear yard setback, adjacent to an alley where only two spaces presently encroach into said setback. APPROVED LOCATION: Lot 26, Block 13, Section 4, Balboa CONDI- Island Tract, located at 321 Marine TIONALLY Avenue, on the westerly side of Marine Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and North Bay Front, on Balboa Island. .ZONE: C -1 - - -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 8, 1982 m � m City, of Newport Beach c n m m OLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Sauter, � Same asapplic Balboa Island ant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Ms. Elsa Sauter, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this application. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2072, A11 Ayes X X X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED; FINDINGS: 1. That the existing and proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Draft Local Coastal Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 2. The , project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3.. That the proposed expansion is minor in nature and will not significantly increase the intensity of use of the subject property. 4. That the existing' and proposed parking space encroachments into the required 10 foot rear yard. setback adjacent to the alley are minor in nature and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Code.. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 2072 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 the general welfare of the City. -14- f m $ m c° a m ro D April 8, 1982 itv of Newaort Beach CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall he . in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That a minimum of three (3) on -site parking spaces be maintained at all times for the commercial use of the property. • x x Request to construct four (4) community directional/ identification signs on Office Site "C" in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 120 -44 & 45 (Resubdivision -No. 635) located on the • easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Street and Campus Drive in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. -ZONE: P -C - APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Ron Hendrickson, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the identification signs for MacArthur Court. Mr. Hendrickson stated that they are not desirous of identifying this project as Koll Center Newport on Birch Street and Campus Drive, at their intersections with MacArthur Boulevard, as suggested in the staff report. MINUTES Mr. Hendrickson stated that they would be willing to include the words, "Newport Beach" on the MacArthur Court sign at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive to indicate where Newport Beach ends. • and The City of Irvine begins. -15- INDEX USE PERMIT N0: 2073 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY April 8, 1982 X w � m x m City of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker discussed the general purpose of community identification signs in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. He stated that the Commission must determine if they want to allow groupings of buildings, within the planned community, to be signed in the same manner as the entire planned community is signed. Mr. .Hendrickson requested the findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Exhibit "B" of the staff report. Commissioner. Beek stated that the Commission must determine what the motorists will be looking for in five years. He stated that the MacArthur Court signs at the entrance of the development will be very useful to the motorists and will help direct the traffic to the appropriate locations. However, he stated that the MacArthur Court signs at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard will be very misleading to the motorist. • Further, he stated that the Newport.Beach City boundary is better indicated by a standard highway sign. Motion Motion was made to approve the MacArthur Court signs at the entrances to the MacArthur Court development and deny the MacArthur Court signs at the corners of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. The "Koll Center Newport" community identification sign as suggested in Condition No. 3 of Exhibit "A ", shall be deleted. Commissioner King stated that a MacArthur Court community identification sign at the corner of Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard would be of vital importance to the directional flow of traffic and would alert the motorist to the location of MacArthur Court. Amendment I I I I I I Amendment was made to the motion to allow the signs at Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and to allow the two directional signs at both Birch Street and Campus Drive for MacArthur Court. Mr. Hendrickson stated that these signs are substantially set back on the property and it is very clear that they identify the project. He stated that it is very important to have the identification signs • on Campus Drive as.well as Birch Street. -16- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 8, 1982 r c m C 3 6 m m N w w = City of Newport Beach 3=0 L.L CALL INDEX Substitute Substitute Motion was made to accept the four Motion X directional signs as proposed by The Irvine Company in Ayes K X X X X the locations as indicated, with the provision that the Noes X X words "Newport Beach" will be added to the sign at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "B" as follows, which'SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED: - • • FINDINGS: 1. That the request is consistent with the standards and requirements of the Planned Community Text. 2. The approval of Use Permit No. 2073 will not, under the circumstances of the.particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements, in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed signs shall be constructed in .substantial conformance with the submitted plans except as noted below. 2. That the proposed signs at the entrance drive on Birch Street and Campus Drive shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, measured from grade. 3. That all proposed signs shall be exteriorly illuminated. 4. That the proposed signs shall maintain a minimum setback of ten (10) feet from any property line adjacent to a public right -of -way. 5. That the words "Newport Beach" shall be added to the sign at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. - -17- "ANSSIONERS MINUTES April 8, 1982 3 � >I City. of Newport Beach WLL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX Request to establish an entertainment center with electronic games of skill in an existing building located in the C -1 District. - LOCATION: A portion of Lots No. 2 and 3, Block P, Tract No. 323, located at 3024 East Coast Highway, on the easterly side of East Coast Highway between Jasmine Avenue and Iris Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: I C -1 - APPLICANT: Hersel Meyers, Huntington Beach OWNER: -Mousa K. Mahgerefteh, Huntington Beach AND AND • Request to establish an entertainment center with electronic games of skill in an existing building (i.e. The Balboa Inn) located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lots 12, 13 14,.15 & 16, Block 10, Balboa Tract, located at- 105 -Main Street on the northwesterly corner of Main Street and West Ocean Front in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -Z - - APPLICANT: Chien -Shan Wang, Balboa OWNER: Same as applicant Chairman McLaughlin referred to Items No. 8 and 9 - Use Permit No. 2074 and Use Permit No. 2075, relating to electronic game centers, and suggested that these . items be continued until such time as the City Council has considered the proposed Skill Games Ordinance.. • -18 Motion A11 Ayes • MINUTES April 8, 1982 3 R � r c m � m 3 City of Newport Beach INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Commission has the right to continue these items for a reasonable period of time to allow the City Council to review and take action on the proposed ordinance. Request to permit the construction of a two -unit I.Item #10 residential condominium and related garages in the R -2 District. USE PERMIT AND NO. 2077 Request to create a single parcel of land for residential condominium development where one lot AND presently exists. - LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 140, Canal Section, located at 207 40th Street, on the Item #11 Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2074 and Use X X I IXI X X' [ I Permit No. 2075 to the Planning Commission Meeting of RESUB- ZONE: R -2 - May 20, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to permit the construction of a two -unit I.Item #10 residential condominium and related garages in the R -2 District. USE PERMIT AND NO. 2077 Request to create a single parcel of land for residential condominium development where one lot AND presently exists. - LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 140, Canal Section, located at 207 40th Street, on the Item #11 westerly side of 40th Street between Balboa Boulevard and River Avenue, in West Newport. RESUB- ZONE: R -2 - DIVISION NO. 722 APPLICANT: Roger and Beatrice Ledin, Costa Mesa OWNER: Ledin Family Trust, Costa Mesa BOTH ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers, Costa Mesa. APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Agenda Item Nos. 10 and 11 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. • II II II II �- April 8, 1982 � x � r c m � � m F. City of Newport Beach MINUTES IIIIIIIII ALL CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. David Larson, representing the architect, Spangler, Shachtman and Associates, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Larson referred to Page 4 of the staff report and requested that they not be required to redesign the development with four full size parking spaces. - Mr. .Roger Ledin, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of these applications as proposed. Motion JJJJJXJJ Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2077, Ayes X X X x subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes X MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. • 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district.in which the proposed project is located, at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. That no low or moderate income persons will be evicted or displaced in conjunction with the proposed residential condominium development, as required under Section 65590 of the California Government Code. • IIIIIIII Motion Ayes Noes -- - - April 8, 1982 � r � • m m City of Newport Beach 7. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 722 be fulfilled. I I IXI I Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 722, X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions; which X MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That. the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. rnnm rmrnrac. 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2.. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. • IIIIIIII MINUTES INDEX \AMISSIONERS MINUTES April S, 1982 �x MR]" 3. That each dwelling unit be served with individual water services and sewer laterals to the main unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That vehicular access to the parcel be from the adjacent alley. 5. That the proposed driveway join the existing alley paving prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. x ADDITIONAL, BUSINESS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Suggested Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code . Motion X Motion was made to set for public hearing, a suggested AyeS. X_X X X 'X X. Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code on May 6, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. Housing Element Implementation - Density Increases Study Session item to be discussed at 2:00 p.m. on May 6, 1982, will include the Housing Element .Implementation - Density Increases. There being no further. business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • I I I I 1 I I I -2.2- a m N City of Newport Beach MR]" 3. That each dwelling unit be served with individual water services and sewer laterals to the main unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That vehicular access to the parcel be from the adjacent alley. 5. That the proposed driveway join the existing alley paving prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. x ADDITIONAL, BUSINESS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Suggested Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code . Motion X Motion was made to set for public hearing, a suggested AyeS. X_X X X 'X X. Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code on May 6, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. Housing Element Implementation - Density Increases Study Session item to be discussed at 2:00 p.m. on May 6, 1982, will include the Housing Element .Implementation - Density Increases. There being no further. business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • I I I I 1 I I I -2.2- 4�3 r 1 u • CHAPTER 20.73 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS Sections: EXHIBIT A 20.73.005 Intent and Purpose. 20.73.010 Definitions. 20.73.015 Use Permit Required. 20.73.016 Planning Commission or City Council Review. 20.73.019 Physical Elements Report. 20.73.020 Fees. 20.73.025 Standards - All Condominium Projects. 20.73.030 Modification or Waiver of Development Standards. 20.73.035 Condominium Conversion Regulations, Vacancy Rate. 20.73.040 Existing Structures and Uses, Approved Plans. 20.73.045 Separability. 20.73.005 INTENT AND PURPOSE. The City Council finds and determines that residential condominium projects differ in many aspects from other types of construction and form of ownership and development. Therefore, these regulations are adopted to guide the development of new residential condominium projects and conversions of existing dwelling units to condominium projects. It is the intent of these regulations to provide a balanced mix between ownership and rental housing in order to assure the development of a variety of housing types to serve the needs of the community. 20.73.010 DEFINITIONS. The following terms used herein shall have the meanings indicated: A. CONDOMINIUM. The term "condominium" shall mean and include the following: A condominium project, as defined in Section 1350 of the Civil Code, containing two or more condominiums, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code; a community apartment project, as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code, containing two or more rights of exclusive occupancy; a stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code, containing two or more rights of exclusive occupancy; or any other such project as defined by state law. In addition, for the purpose of this Chapter, development which offers own- your -own or fee ownership units, whereby the individual owns land directly below the "footprint" of said unit, and all other land within the project is owned in common, shall be defined as a condominium. B. CONVERSION. The term "conversion" shall mean the change of rental dwelling units to condominium ownership as defined above. FM EXHIBIT A C. ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS. The term "organizational documents" • shall mean the declaration of restrictions, articles of incorporation, bylaws and any contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of all or any part of a project. D. PROJECT. The term "project" shall mean the entire parcel of real property proposed to be used or divided, as land or airspace, into two or more units as a condominium. E. VACANCY RATE. The term "vacancy rate" shall mean the number of vacant dwellings in projects of five or more dwelling units being offered for rent or lease in the City of Newport Beach shown as a percentage of the total number of dwellings in projects of five or more dwelling units offered for or under rental or lease agreement in the City. Said vacancy rate shall be as established once each year, in April, by survey of 15% of the City's rental units in projects of five or more dwelling units. 20.73.015 USE PERMIT REQUIRED. Condominium projects may be permitted in any district in which residential uses are permitted, including Planned Communities, subject to securing a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.83 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In Planned Community Districts, residential developments, all or part of which have been specifically designated as condominium projects on the approved Planned Community Development Plan, shall be permitted subject to the requirement of a • specific Planning Commission finding that the Commission has considered the criteria and requirements of this Chapter in approving the Planned Community and accompanying regulatory text. In addition, the approval of a tentative and final tract map or parcel map shall be required for all condominium projects in accordance with Title 19, Newport Beach Municipal Code. No persons shall construct a new condominium development, or convert an existing residential use to a condominium, within the City of Newport Beach without first complying with the provisions of this Chapter. Tentative or parcel maps shall not be required until after a use permit has been approved, but such maps and permit may be processed for approval concurrently. 20.73.016 PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. The Planning Commission or City Council, in approving any use permit for a condominium conversion, may consider but shall not necessarily be limited to the following criteria: 1. Age and physical condition of the building and accessory structures such as garages, carports, swimming pools, etc. 2. Condition of wiring, plumbing, kitchen and bathroom fixtures. 3. Provision of adequate sound barriers and insulation between units. • 20.73.019 PHYSICAL ELEMENTS REPORT. All applications for condominium conversion shall be accompanied by a physical elements report. as EXHIBIT A Such report shall be prepared by an appropriately licensed contractor, • architect, civil engineer, or structural engineer other than the owner. The report shall detail the estimated remaining useful life of each element of the proposed project including roofs, foundations, exterior paint, paved surfaces, mechanical systems, electrical systems, plumbing systems, sewage systems, swimming pools, sprinkler systems for landscaping, utility delivery systems, central or community heating and air conditioning systems, fire protection systems and structural elements. For any element whose useful life is less than five (5) years, a replacement cost estimate shall be provided in the physical elements report. In addition, the report shall evaluate the structure(s) in terms of existing building and zoning code provisions. The physical elements report shall be provided to prospective buyers of the converted units by the developer. 20.73.020 FEES. In addition to use permit and parcel map fees, condominium applications shall be accompanied by (a) fees established by resolution of the City Council for review of organizational documents of the project submitted as part of a tentative tract or parcel map application; and (b) a special City building and zoning inspection report and fee, in the case of condominium conversion applications. Use Permit, Tentative and Parcel Map Applications for condominium conversions will not be accepted until completion of the special City building and zoning inspection report. • 20.73.025 STANDARDS - ALL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS. Condominium projects whether new projects or conversions, shall conform to the following, and the Planning Commission or the City Council, on appeal or review shall make specific findings as to such conformance in any action approving a use permit application. A. The project shall comply with all applicable standard plans and specifications, adopted City and State building codes, and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. Whenever regulations or restrictions imposed by this Section are either more or less restrictive than regulations or restrictions imposed by any other law, the regulations, restrictions or laws which are most restrictive, or which impose higher standards, shall govern. B. The project lot size shall conform to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. C. The project shall be consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to the balance and dispersion of housing types within the City. D. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for shall 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 tz-- EXHIBIT A neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious • to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 20.73.030 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. A. ZONING CODE. The Planning Commission, by a 4/5 vote of those present and voting, shall have the right to modify or waive any zoning standards required by Section 20.73.025(A), if such modification or waiver will have no greater adverse impact on adjacent properties or structures than strict compliance with these standards. B. BUILDING CODE. The Planning Commission may, by a 2/3 vote of those present and voting, authorize the Building Official to approve minor variations from the Building Code with regard to conversion of existing structures where full compliance would present practical difficulties and result in extreme hardship and where such modification or waiver will have no impact on the health and safety of future occupants and will in no way be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements. 20.73.035 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION REGULATIONS. A. All applications for conversion of existing rental dwelling units • shall conform to the following, and the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal or review, shall make specific findings as to such conformance in any action approving a use permit for a condominium conversion. 1. The application shall propose special considerations for fixed income elderly tenants and handicapped persons in the way of extended notice of conversion intent, relocation assistance, or other means. 2. Existing tenants whose income is below 1208 of the County's median income shall be permitted to remain as renters for a period of one year following notice of intent to convert. 3. Existing tenants whose income is below 808 of the County's median income shall receive relocation assistance. B. Vacancy Rate Regulation. Where it is proposed to convert an existing residential development of five or more dwelling units to condominium units, the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal or review, shall disapprove, without prejudice, any use permit application if the rental vacancy rate for projects of five or more dwelling units in the City at the time of the public hearing is equal to or less than five percent (58). Overriding Considerations. Notwithstanding the above, the • Planning Commission may approve a condominium conversion use permit and, if approved, shall make corresponding findings, if a� EXHIBIT A evidence has been submitted that two - thirds (2/3) of the existing • tenants, and any tenants evicted during the twelve month period prior to the application to convert, have voted to recommend approval of the conversion. C. Coastal Zone. At such time as the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal or review, approves the conversion of existing rental dwelling units which are located in the Coastal Zone, the City shall require that all provisions of Section 65590 of the California Government Code (SB 626, Mello) shall be met. The project applicant shall be responsible for the provision of replacement dwelling units for low and moderate income persons as required under Section 65590 and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal or review that the replacement units will be provided. D. Phasing. The total number of conversions of duplex to fourplex units approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal or review, shall not exceed five percent of the City's total stock of duplex to fourplex units in a given calendar year. E. It shall be the responsibility of the project applicant to provide such information on existing and previous tenants as is necessary for the administration of this ordinance, including but not limited to: 1. A list of all tenants in the year preceding the • application to convert. 2. A list of all tenants evicted in the year preceding the application to convert and the reasons for the eviction. 3. Information regarding tenant income as required. 20.73.040 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USE; APPROVED PLANS. Any residential condominium development, whether originally established as such or converted from multi - family units, which lawfully exists on the effective date of this ordinance, or for which an approved Planned Community Development Plan specifically provides that proposed residential developments shall be condominiums, shall be permitted to continue such use as approved. Any addition, expansion or substantial alteration of the development plans shall be subject to all provisions of this Chapter. 20.73.045 SEPARABILITY. If any provisions or requirements of this Chapter shall be found invalid or unconstitutional in application or in interpretation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. (Ord. 1817 s 1, 1979)