Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/1986MMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING PLACE: TIME: COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. C o 0 DATE: April 10, 1986 z c m y m z x x x Minutes of March 20, 1986: Commissioner Koppelman amended page 9, paragraph 3, to state: "Commissioner Koppelman commented that she had hoped that through the use of proper conditions the Minutes of March 20, 1986 c= w a g 0 0 C a z= T l City of Newport Beach Present I xlxIxIx�I x I x I Commissioner Eichenhofer was absent. Absent I x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney x x x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x x x Minutes of March 20, 1986: Commissioner Koppelman amended page 9, paragraph 3, to state: "Commissioner Koppelman commented that she had hoped that through the use of proper conditions the Minutes of March 20, 1986 proposed parking lot could be made compatible with the neighborhood .... ". Commissioner Kurlander amended the Minutes of March 6, 1986, so as to state: "that the intent was that the designation "P" only be removed from the McFadden Square area; therefore, the paragraph would read as follows: "Chairman Person advised that the straw vote reflects the removal of the "P" designation in reference to any location of the McFadden Square Parking Structure from any map within Motion x the Specific Area Plan " ". Motion was made to approve Ayes x x x x x x the amended March 20, 1986, Planning Commission Absent x Minutes. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x x Request for Continuances: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, recommended that Continuance Item No. 1, Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement, Edgewater Place, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 1986; Items No. 3, Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) 1555 Superior • Avenue, and No. 4, Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) 105 Main Street, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 1986; and Item No. 8, Use Permit No. 3195, 2306 West Ocean Front, be removed from calendar. -I- CONWISSIONERS1 April 10, 1985 MINUTES of Newport Beach Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No. 1, Use Permit No. Ayes x x x x x x 3122 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of Absent x May 8, 1986; Item No. 3, Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 1986, and Item No. 8, Use Permit No. 3195, to be Removed from Calendar. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion Ayes x x Abstain x Absent • • Motion was made to continue Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of a commercial building and related parking structure known as Edgewater Place, on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment includes a request to delete Condition No. 2 which consists of the fulfillment of all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 797. AND B. Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement (Continued Discussion) Request to waive the requirement for a parcel map to create a single parcel of land where twelve lots, a portion of one lot, a vacated portion of Edgewater Place, and a portion of a vacated alley, now exist. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and a portion of Lot 4, an unnumbered lot and a portion of a public alley proposed to be vacated, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; Lot 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract; and a portion of vacated Edgewater Place, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. -2- INDEX Item No.l TTP'1122A Waiver of Parcel Map Requiremen Continued to 5 -8 -86 A x c o 0 x m a c m s m = m A A z r o Z W Z v o i 0 0 W m 0 m a r = D 2 9 2 T m of Newport Beach Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No. 1, Use Permit No. Ayes x x x x x x 3122 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of Absent x May 8, 1986; Item No. 3, Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 1986, and Item No. 8, Use Permit No. 3195, to be Removed from Calendar. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion Ayes x x Abstain x Absent • • Motion was made to continue Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of a commercial building and related parking structure known as Edgewater Place, on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment includes a request to delete Condition No. 2 which consists of the fulfillment of all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 797. AND B. Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement (Continued Discussion) Request to waive the requirement for a parcel map to create a single parcel of land where twelve lots, a portion of one lot, a vacated portion of Edgewater Place, and a portion of a vacated alley, now exist. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and a portion of Lot 4, an unnumbered lot and a portion of a public alley proposed to be vacated, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; Lot 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract; and a portion of vacated Edgewater Place, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. -2- INDEX Item No.l TTP'1122A Waiver of Parcel Map Requiremen Continued to 5 -8 -86 MINUTES ZONE.: C -1 APPLICANT: Edgewater Place, Balboa OWNERS: Mark Howard, Don Franklin, Roland Vallely, Newport Beach Motion Ayes Absent I X x x COMMISSIONERS x x x Motions, was made to continue Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. r x x Use Permit No.. 2055 (Amended) (Continued Discussion) Request for a three year extension of a previously April lo, 1986 x _ approved use permit which allowed the use of a tempo- C O IF rary building for classrooms and meetings, in conjunc- Z c m y m z z 0 o C O O M 9 z M a T m l City of Newport Beach MINUTES ZONE.: C -1 APPLICANT: Edgewater Place, Balboa OWNERS: Mark Howard, Don Franklin, Roland Vallely, Newport Beach Motion Ayes Absent I X x x x x x x Motions, was made to continue Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. r x x Use Permit No.. 2055 (Amended) (Continued Discussion) Request for a three year extension of a previously approved use permit which allowed the use of a tempo- rary building for classrooms and meetings, in conjunc- tion with an existing church facility located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Tract No. 27, located at 3262 Broad Street, on the southeasterly corner of Broad Street and Bolsa Avenue, in Newport Heights.' ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Plymouth Congregational Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that several of the residents in the area have signed and submitted a petition agreeing to a final extension of the subject use permit for an additional two years. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Donald Webb, City Engineer, advised that the 15 foot radius corner cutoffs at the corners of Broad Street. and Bolsa Avenue, and Clay Street and Bolsa Avenue have been dedicated to the City, as previously • I I I I I I I required. Mr. Webb further commented that the subject 1 Use Permit, Condition No. 6, approved by the Planning -3- Item No.2 UP2055A Approved A 2 Year Extension ROLL 4 RS April 10, 1986 MINUTES Beach INDEX Commission in 1984, stated that the public improvements were to be constructed if an additional extension were requested; however, he said the applicant has asked that the condition be deleted, and that the staff has stated that the matter would have to come back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing if said condition were deleted. Mr. Frank Rupert, 1112 Valley Circle, Costa Mesa, and Mr. Ivan Rebert, 919 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Plymouth Congregational Church. Mr. Rupert requested a waiver of the public improvements. He commented that the public improvements would be expensive, and that the Church does not have the monies available at this time. Mr. Rupert explained that the area surrounding the Church is kept clean, and that the temporary building is utilized by a small contingency of the congregation. • In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Rupert advised that he has not seen the aforementioned petition; however, he would be agreeable to the suggested extension of two years inasmuch as the membership within the Church has not increased. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Webb replied that the estimated cost of the public improvements would be $10,000. Commissioner Winburn stated that the purpose for the subject temporary building four years ago was to help facilitate the growth of the Church membership, and because there has not been an increase in the membership, she asked if the programs contained within the :temporary building could be combined into the Church? Mr. Rupert replied that there is not enough space within the Church facility for the programs. Commissioner winburn asked how much longer the temporary building would be needed? Mr. Rebert replied that the Church is suggesting an extension of two years, because the Church is considering alternatives inasmuch as the membership has not grown. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Rebert advised that the Sunday School classes are currently being held in the temporary building. -4- a ~ v r m I z c m > m z m a a Z Z r P 2 c z M m m o o 3 m a O T O O I �'�` ,. Z a Z a Z T m ,7V,�. Beach INDEX Commission in 1984, stated that the public improvements were to be constructed if an additional extension were requested; however, he said the applicant has asked that the condition be deleted, and that the staff has stated that the matter would have to come back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing if said condition were deleted. Mr. Frank Rupert, 1112 Valley Circle, Costa Mesa, and Mr. Ivan Rebert, 919 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Plymouth Congregational Church. Mr. Rupert requested a waiver of the public improvements. He commented that the public improvements would be expensive, and that the Church does not have the monies available at this time. Mr. Rupert explained that the area surrounding the Church is kept clean, and that the temporary building is utilized by a small contingency of the congregation. • In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Rupert advised that he has not seen the aforementioned petition; however, he would be agreeable to the suggested extension of two years inasmuch as the membership within the Church has not increased. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Webb replied that the estimated cost of the public improvements would be $10,000. Commissioner Winburn stated that the purpose for the subject temporary building four years ago was to help facilitate the growth of the Church membership, and because there has not been an increase in the membership, she asked if the programs contained within the :temporary building could be combined into the Church? Mr. Rupert replied that there is not enough space within the Church facility for the programs. Commissioner winburn asked how much longer the temporary building would be needed? Mr. Rebert replied that the Church is suggesting an extension of two years, because the Church is considering alternatives inasmuch as the membership has not grown. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Rebert advised that the Sunday School classes are currently being held in the temporary building. -4- 0 Motion 0 April 10, 1986 of Newport Beach Mrs. Diana Springer, 3300 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the neighbors who submitted the petition. Mrs. Springer commented that the Church has been well maintained; however, the neighbors believe that the Church should make a permanent decision as to their future plans. Mrs. Springer further commented that the neighbors would agree to a continuation of the required public improvements for two years. Ms. Sherry Burr, 3308 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the Church remaining at the present location, because the Church has been a good neighbor. She stated her concern regarding the temporary building becoming a permanent structure. She further commented that the public improvements are not a big problem. if the Church cannot afford to construct them at this time. In response to Commissioner Goff, Ms. Burr replied that the Neighborhood Watch meetings are held in the main Church building.. The public hearing was closed at this time Commissioner Turner opined that the Church will be required to make a decision whether to build, to expand, or to sell within the next two years, and that the installation of the public improvements should be delayed until the plans of the site have been finalized, and he commented that the Church has been a good neighbor. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended), including amended Condition No. 3 from three years to two years, and deleting "any extension of time shall be approved by the Modifications Committee "; to delete Condition No. 5 requiring that the public improvements be installed within 90 days, because the public improvements could be installed at the time other improvements are being constructed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding Condition No. 4, Mr. Webb replied that Condition No. 4, "that all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department ", is a standard condition and that he would recommend that the condition remain. Commissioner Koppelman advised that she would support the motion, and stated that she found the neighbors and Church commendable because they could all come to some type of understanding. -5- MINUTES INDEX F F C O O ~i 9 V m ti 9 P 9 2 C T D m 2 M= m o C O O i v O m D 2 a Z w m April 10, 1986 of Newport Beach Mrs. Diana Springer, 3300 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the neighbors who submitted the petition. Mrs. Springer commented that the Church has been well maintained; however, the neighbors believe that the Church should make a permanent decision as to their future plans. Mrs. Springer further commented that the neighbors would agree to a continuation of the required public improvements for two years. Ms. Sherry Burr, 3308 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the Church remaining at the present location, because the Church has been a good neighbor. She stated her concern regarding the temporary building becoming a permanent structure. She further commented that the public improvements are not a big problem. if the Church cannot afford to construct them at this time. In response to Commissioner Goff, Ms. Burr replied that the Neighborhood Watch meetings are held in the main Church building.. The public hearing was closed at this time Commissioner Turner opined that the Church will be required to make a decision whether to build, to expand, or to sell within the next two years, and that the installation of the public improvements should be delayed until the plans of the site have been finalized, and he commented that the Church has been a good neighbor. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended), including amended Condition No. 3 from three years to two years, and deleting "any extension of time shall be approved by the Modifications Committee "; to delete Condition No. 5 requiring that the public improvements be installed within 90 days, because the public improvements could be installed at the time other improvements are being constructed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding Condition No. 4, Mr. Webb replied that Condition No. 4, "that all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department ", is a standard condition and that he would recommend that the condition remain. Commissioner Koppelman advised that she would support the motion, and stated that she found the neighbors and Church commendable because they could all come to some type of understanding. -5- MINUTES INDEX ROLL • A" JxJX x Noes x Absent April 10, 1986 of Newport Beach Chairman Person pointed out that the staff report states that if the applicant wishes to delete Condition No. 6 that the matter will have to be set for public hearing. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, advised that the subject use permit is being heard only as a discussion item, and that there cannot be a change of conditions; however, he explained that. the Planning Commission may desire to delay a condition for two years. Mr..Laycock added that if the trailer is removed within two years, the curbs and gutters will not have to be constructed. Mr. Hewicker in summary, stated that if the Planning Commission recommends that there be no more than a two year extension, then the applicant would have to remove the trailer from the premises and restore that portion of the site. He suggested that if there are no provisions for extensions beyond that time, then Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 pertaining to public improvements could be deleted. Commissioner Turner cited that if the applicant decides to improve the permanent church structure during the two years, Condition No. 4 may be needed. Mr. Hewicker advised that a condition could be added that states that if the applicant decides to install the required public improvements during the remaining two years on the use permit, those public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance. Commissioner Turner stated that he would accept the condition as part of the motion. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion reluctantly for various reasons. He questioned the deleted conditions imposed during the public hearing or waiving the conditions without noticing the public hearing. He commented that four years is adequate for a temporary structure; however, he pointed out that the neighbors are not strongly objecting to the two year extension, but he did point out that the neighbors have said that there has to be a time limit imposed on the temporary structure. Motion voted on to approve a two year extension of Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended), subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the deletion of Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 pertaining to public improvements, and the addition of Condition No. 8 pertaining to said improvements if the applicant decides to install the required improvements. MOTION CARRIED. -6- MINUTES INDEX a x c o 0 x _ z c C m a m z m a z z r o x C z w o 3 O o M ao m> Z M z M m ROLL • A" JxJX x Noes x Absent April 10, 1986 of Newport Beach Chairman Person pointed out that the staff report states that if the applicant wishes to delete Condition No. 6 that the matter will have to be set for public hearing. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, advised that the subject use permit is being heard only as a discussion item, and that there cannot be a change of conditions; however, he explained that. the Planning Commission may desire to delay a condition for two years. Mr..Laycock added that if the trailer is removed within two years, the curbs and gutters will not have to be constructed. Mr. Hewicker in summary, stated that if the Planning Commission recommends that there be no more than a two year extension, then the applicant would have to remove the trailer from the premises and restore that portion of the site. He suggested that if there are no provisions for extensions beyond that time, then Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 pertaining to public improvements could be deleted. Commissioner Turner cited that if the applicant decides to improve the permanent church structure during the two years, Condition No. 4 may be needed. Mr. Hewicker advised that a condition could be added that states that if the applicant decides to install the required public improvements during the remaining two years on the use permit, those public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance. Commissioner Turner stated that he would accept the condition as part of the motion. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion reluctantly for various reasons. He questioned the deleted conditions imposed during the public hearing or waiving the conditions without noticing the public hearing. He commented that four years is adequate for a temporary structure; however, he pointed out that the neighbors are not strongly objecting to the two year extension, but he did point out that the neighbors have said that there has to be a time limit imposed on the temporary structure. Motion voted on to approve a two year extension of Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended), subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the deletion of Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 pertaining to public improvements, and the addition of Condition No. 8 pertaining to said improvements if the applicant decides to install the required improvements. MOTION CARRIED. -6- MINUTES INDEX FINDINGS: April 10, 1986 Beach 1. The existing development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. 2. The existing project does not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. The approval of the extension of time for Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended) 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. 0 11111111 CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall remain in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That the temporary structure shall be removed from the site and the premises shall be restored to its former conditions upon the termination of the proposed use on the site. 3. That the approval of the extension of this use permit shall be for a period of two years. 4. Deleted. 5. Deleted. 6. That the current use of the temporary building shall not be significantly intensified. 7. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -7- MINUTES INDEX x m z C s m m a Z r 0 x ^ C S N 0 O r+ 0 0 2 T = y= T T FINDINGS: April 10, 1986 Beach 1. The existing development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. 2. The existing project does not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. The approval of the extension of time for Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended) 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. 0 11111111 CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall remain in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That the temporary structure shall be removed from the site and the premises shall be restored to its former conditions upon the termination of the proposed use on the site. 3. That the approval of the extension of this use permit shall be for a period of two years. 4. Deleted. 5. Deleted. 6. That the current use of the temporary building shall not be significantly intensified. 7. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -7- MINUTES INDEX April 10, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX 0 Motion Ayes Absent • 8 . at, if the applicant decides to install the ;squired public improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavements along the Broad Street, Bolsa Avenue, and Clay Street frontages of the site) during the remaining two years on the use permit, those improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance. x x x Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted a 74 bed convalescent center in the M -1 -A District. The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a new building containing a laundry facility and storage area. The proposal also includes a modi- fication to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed building to encroach 9 feet into a required 10 foot zone separation setback along the southerly side property line. It should be noted that the proposed construction is part of a previously approved use permit which has expired. LOCATION: A portion of Lot No. 614, First Addi- tion, Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1555 Superior Avenue, on the north- westerly side of Superior Avenue between Fifteenth Street and Sixteenth Street, adjacent to the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Newport Convalescent Center, Newport Beach OWNER.: American Health Centers, Newport Beach I 11x1 I Motion.. was made to continue Use Permit No. 689 x x x x x (Amended) to the April 24, 1986, Planning Commission x Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * r Item No.3 UP689A Continued to. 4 -24 -86 F F C O O F 9 2 - C v 9 m m S 9 z r Q 2 C z 0 O K O O m a Z M i M z M m _ April 10, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX 0 Motion Ayes Absent • 8 . at, if the applicant decides to install the ;squired public improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavements along the Broad Street, Bolsa Avenue, and Clay Street frontages of the site) during the remaining two years on the use permit, those improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance. x x x Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted a 74 bed convalescent center in the M -1 -A District. The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a new building containing a laundry facility and storage area. The proposal also includes a modi- fication to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed building to encroach 9 feet into a required 10 foot zone separation setback along the southerly side property line. It should be noted that the proposed construction is part of a previously approved use permit which has expired. LOCATION: A portion of Lot No. 614, First Addi- tion, Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1555 Superior Avenue, on the north- westerly side of Superior Avenue between Fifteenth Street and Sixteenth Street, adjacent to the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Newport Convalescent Center, Newport Beach OWNER.: American Health Centers, Newport Beach I 11x1 I Motion.. was made to continue Use Permit No. 689 x x x x x (Amended) to the April 24, 1986, Planning Commission x Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * r Item No.3 UP689A Continued to. 4 -24 -86 COM city, Of N April 10, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l - TINNDEX • Motion Ayes Abstain Absent 0 No. 3158 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which µ4! ! permr���d;',various alterations to the Balboa Inn and relai restaurant uses. The proposed amendment inC1Fi „.a: request to establish an alternate outdoor dining !area on an existing second floor deck. Said dining_'aiea will not increase the existing "net public area" of the restaurant inasmuch as it will not be used simultaneously with the existing outdoor dining area on the ground floor. The proposal also includes a request to allow non - amplified live entertainment in the two outdoor dining areas. LOCATION: Lots 12 -16, Block 10, Balboa Tract, located at 105 Main Street, on the northwesterly corner of East Ocean Front and Main Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -Z APPLICANT: Balboa Improvements, Ltd., Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant I j I j j x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3158 x x x x (Amended) to the April 24, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x x Use Permit No. 3193 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of an automatic car wash with gasoline sales on property located in the C -O -H District. The proposal also includes a modifica- tion to the Zoning Code so as to permit signs that exceed the size and number permitted. LOCATION: Lot 16 and a portion of Lot 17, Tract No. 4824, located at 1000 Irvine Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive, in the Westcliff Shopping Center. ZONE: C -0 -H Tfam Nn_d I i:It1LT..i_l Continued to 4 -24 -86 Item No.5 UP3193 Approved c x c o � x 9. r v m z c c m s m = 0 9 D Z r O x C Z p' S O O m 0 m D T Z 9 2 z 2 S 2� M m city, Of N April 10, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l - TINNDEX • Motion Ayes Abstain Absent 0 No. 3158 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which µ4! ! permr���d;',various alterations to the Balboa Inn and relai restaurant uses. The proposed amendment inC1Fi „.a: request to establish an alternate outdoor dining !area on an existing second floor deck. Said dining_'aiea will not increase the existing "net public area" of the restaurant inasmuch as it will not be used simultaneously with the existing outdoor dining area on the ground floor. The proposal also includes a request to allow non - amplified live entertainment in the two outdoor dining areas. LOCATION: Lots 12 -16, Block 10, Balboa Tract, located at 105 Main Street, on the northwesterly corner of East Ocean Front and Main Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -Z APPLICANT: Balboa Improvements, Ltd., Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant I j I j j x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3158 x x x x (Amended) to the April 24, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x x Use Permit No. 3193 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of an automatic car wash with gasoline sales on property located in the C -O -H District. The proposal also includes a modifica- tion to the Zoning Code so as to permit signs that exceed the size and number permitted. LOCATION: Lot 16 and a portion of Lot 17, Tract No. 4824, located at 1000 Irvine Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive, in the Westcliff Shopping Center. ZONE: C -0 -H Tfam Nn_d I i:It1LT..i_l Continued to 4 -24 -86 Item No.5 UP3193 Approved ROLL MMISSIONERS April 10, 1986 F C CO f y A 9 2 O m .. m A A Z r °_ ` Z ° E ° ° Z z m a City of Newport Beach Z �z r m P APPLICANT.: Dick Meyers, Shell Oil Company, Anaheim OWNER The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The .p}lic hearing was opened in connection with this item:; an3 .Mr. Ken van Gordon appeared before the Planring.;COmmission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. vah- Gprdan stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the except Ofi of Conditions No. 9 and No. 12 wherein these conditions are subject to the review and approval of the..Cty Engineer and Traffic Engineer. Mr. van Gordon explained that these conditions leave themselves open to the STraffic Engineer and City Engineer for major revisions. He stated that minor revisions would be no I I I I I I I Mr. van Gordon stated that the applicant is also objecting to the 28 foot wide access drives as recommended in Condition No. 16. Mr. van Gordon I I I advised that the applicant is requesting an access drive of 24 feet to Irvine Avenue and 26 feet to Westcliff Drive. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. van Gordon replied that the main objection to the 28 foot access would be that the applicant would have to remove attractive landscaping. Commissioner Turner and Mr. van Gordon discussed the ingress - egress of the Westcliff Shopping Center parking lot to the Shell station. Commissioner Winburn cited that Condition No. 20 requires restrooms be provided during all hours of operation. In response to Commissioner Winburn, Mr. van Gordon replied that the service station will be open 24 hours, and that there will be a cashier on duty during the hours of operation. Also in reply to Commissioner Winburn, Mr. van Gordon described the area adjacent to the service station that could be utilized by the customer to dry off the automobile. Commissioner Goff referred to the proposed redesign of the Westcliff Plaza parking area, and he asked if there would be another opportunity to widen the access drives • to 28, feet wide. Mr. Webb replied that the Westcliff Plaza parking area can be modified without any discretionary approval. He further stated that he has -10- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS �x c o � x Z C v> v 2 c m y z m = m z D Z r W x z z z m m April lo, 1986 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL reviewed ,a proposed lot line adjustment to add retail space-in the shopping center with The Irvine Company. Mr.. Aiwicker commented that perhaps a condition could be Adoed• "that if The Irvine Company were to modify the parking lot to the north and east of the Shell station at.ariy': time in the future, the 28 foot wide access drive s.,could then be provided. Mr.. Webb stated that there are two 30 foot wide aisles tha "t `act'as main feeder aisles for the rest of the Westcli£f'Plaza parking areas. He said that there are landscape. planters at the entrance to all of the aisles -o.- Mr. Webb explained that the requested 24 foot wide aisle is allowed only in areas that would not be an. access road. He further explained that the reque t,ee 26 foot wide aisle is the third most used aisle-:viithin the shopping center, that there will be traffic entering that aisle from the automobile washing facility,, and he described how there could be a circulation problem within the parking area from the 30 foot .wide aisles to the 26 foot wide and 24 foot wide aisles; Mr. Webb pointed out that the applicant will be closing off one driveway from the service station to the remaining portion of the shopping center. Mr. Webb advised that staff reluctantly said that the applicant's plan could work, but after seeing the overall operation and seeing what The Irvine Company was proposing within the parking area, staff recommended that no access drive less than 28 feet would be advisable. Mr. Webb commented that there would probably not be another opportunity to widen the access drives to 28 feet. He commented that he would not recommend a condition allowing the modification in the future, because he does not recommend the 30 foot aisles narrowing down to the 26 feet and 24 feet aisles. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Webb replied that the applicant will be required to obtain a lot line adjustment because of the expansion outside of the existing lot to create additional space for the automobile wash facilities. Mr. Hewicker commented that on. page 2 of the staff • report, last line of the last paragraph, be amended to . read ..and car wash water will enter the sanitary sewer ". -11- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 10, 1986 x x C o � x _ C v y m z c m a m = c= N o S o o z a= m> m City of Newport Beach Il = T ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve Use Ayes x 2 X x x x Permit- -;,No, 3193 subject to the findings and conditions Absent x in Exhibit "A ", based on Mr. Webb's testimony regarding the :necessity of the 28 foot driveways, and that the staff is recommending that the construction be started immediately. Cotmiissoner Turner stated that he would approve the motion because there is a need to improve the traffic congestion coming out of the parking lot aisles. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3193, subject to the =.,findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRTEEI_. - FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate any problems. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. Adequate off - street parking spaces are being provided in conjunction with the proposed develop- ment. 6. The proposed service station remodel has been designed so as to comply as nearly as possible with the standards for service stations on new sites set forth in Section 20.70.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. That the reduced area for the "car wash" signs • will meet the requirements of the Sign Code, but will still be visible to motorists on the adjoining streets. -12- COMMISSIONERS April 10, 1986 MINUTES 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3193 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. • CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- .mance with the approved plot plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare from adjacent uses and streets. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the public streets and adjoining properties. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department. x 0 C O n z y v v v x r v z z c m a m i CZ 0 oroo M a A= T m a it caf Newport Beach Y P ROLL CALL 5. That all noise from radios, stereos or other INDEX devices emanating from the station operator shall 8. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning be confined to the interior of the cashier's Code, so as to allow an increase in the permitted booth. . area and number of signs and the permitted number 6. That no buzzers or amplified .signaling device of wall signs will not, under the circumstances of shall be permitted on the site. 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 this Code. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3193 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. • CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- .mance with the approved plot plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare from adjacent uses and streets. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the public streets and adjoining properties. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department. -13- 5. That all noise from radios, stereos or other devices emanating from the station operator shall be confined to the interior of the cashier's booth. . 6. That no buzzers or amplified .signaling device shall be permitted on the site. -13- April 10, 1986 Beach 7.,;:That. all signs shall conform to the provisions of `;Chapters 20.06 and 20.70 of the Municipal Code, except for the number of permitted wall signs, and the'.number and area of gasoline price signs. The .car wash" signs shall not exceed 10 sq.ft. each, and the two price signs shall not exceed the areas required by the State. S. That all signs and landscaping shall be designed i.n accordance with Std. -110 -L and shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. 9. That new island curbs in the portion of the Westcliff Plaza parking lot adjacent to the site shall be subject to the further review and ap- proval of the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That all improvements be constructed as required x x by ordinance and the Public Works Department. C i v 11. That a standard use permit agreement and accompa- = nying surety be provided in order to guarantee a s a z m Z � °m a 0 a 1 } City.. f O ments, if it is desired to obtain a building I 2 9 2 y z T m M 1 April 10, 1986 Beach 7.,;:That. all signs shall conform to the provisions of `;Chapters 20.06 and 20.70 of the Municipal Code, except for the number of permitted wall signs, and the'.number and area of gasoline price signs. The .car wash" signs shall not exceed 10 sq.ft. each, and the two price signs shall not exceed the areas required by the State. S. That all signs and landscaping shall be designed i.n accordance with Std. -110 -L and shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. 9. That new island curbs in the portion of the Westcliff Plaza parking lot adjacent to the site shall be subject to the further review and ap- proval of the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That all improvements be constructed as required 12. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 13. That the deteriorated sidewalk be reconstructed along the Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue frontages, and that new drive approaches be constructed per City Std. -166 -L (including the service station side of the two shopping center entrance drives). All work .shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 14. That an access ramp be constructed per City Std. -181 -L at the intersection of Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. • 15. That a lot line adjustment be processed and completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. -14- MINUTES by ordinance and the Public Works Department. . 11. That a standard use permit agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improve- ments, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improve - ments. 12. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 13. That the deteriorated sidewalk be reconstructed along the Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue frontages, and that new drive approaches be constructed per City Std. -166 -L (including the service station side of the two shopping center entrance drives). All work .shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 14. That an access ramp be constructed per City Std. -181 -L at the intersection of Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. • 15. That a lot line adjustment be processed and completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. -14- MINUTES MM.ISSIONERS April lo, 1986 x� �o 2 C m r 9 m a m z C a 0 O C 0 0 M p= 9= M m City' cif Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 16.. That the two main access drives between the Shell Station and westcliff Plaza be at least 28 feet wide, and in the areas where the drives are nar- rowed, the islands on either side of the parking aisles be modified to provide for a minimum 15 foot curb return radius. 17. that all car wash activities shall be contained within the building. 18. That wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and not into the bay or the storm drains. 19. That grease traps shall be provided in all drains where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system unless otherwise permitted by the Building Department. 20. That the service station shall be required to provide restrooms to its customers during all hours of operation. 21. That the Planning Commission may add /or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 22. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within twenty -four months from the date of appro- val as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Use Permit No. 3194 (Public Hearin Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and related garages on property located in the R -3 district. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as • to allow two proposed, second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback, and the acceptance of an environ- mental`document. -15- Item No.6 UP3194 %AAAISSIONERS April 10, 1986 . A A C C 0 o > v - a m z c m y m z C z H o 9 0 0 M a= T City of Newport Beach a WE B. Resubdivision No. 824 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -3 District. 0 C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11 (Discussion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compli- ance for a four unit residential condominium develop- ment pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal zone. LOCATION: A portion of Block D, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenue between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Somers and Associates, Corona del Mar OWNERS: R. Curtis and Jean E. Crooke, Corona del Mar ENGINEER: Lanco Civil Engineers, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, presented the following supplemental information in response to concerns raised after the original staff report was distributed. Mr. Hewicker referred to the General Plan Policies of the General Plan as adopted in 1972, which stated "that the City shall identify and endeavor to preserve and protect those individual areas, buildings, structures, or trees which are deemed to be of major historic, cultural, or aesthetic value to the community ". 9 111111 I Mr. Hewicker advised that in March, 1976, the Planning II Commission initiated Amendment No. 465 to establish a -16- MINUTES R824 RCD Permit mn_ 11 Approved ROLL historical overlay zone which could have been applied to various properties within the City. He said that two .properties that the City had in mind in 1976 were the Balboa Pavilion, and the Lovell residence located on West Ocean Front whose architect was a protege of Frank Lloyd Wright. Mr. Hewicker advised that Amendment No. 465 was forwarded to the City Council, whereby the Amendment was tabled by the City Council. Mr. Hewicker stated that there has been no activity for nine years as far as establishing a historical overlay zone; however, on May 28, 1985, the City Council adopted Council Policy A -15 which provides for the designation of historical properties and buildings within Newport Beach. Mr.. Hewicker pointed out that the application for the historical designation largely lies with the individual property owner and the policy requires that upon application to the City Manager, the City Manager will forward the application to the Parksi,:;Beaches, and Recreation Commission, the Arts • Commission land the Newport Beach Historical Society for review and recommendation prior to City Council determination. He said that to date there have been two sites which have been placed on a historical register file as maintained by the City Clerk: the Jolly -Roger Restaurant on Balboa Island on October 15, 1985, ;:and the Balboa Inn on December 20, 1985. He commented that a conservation agreement dedicated to the City would leave the exterior appearance of the Balboa Inn in its current restored state. Mr. Hewicker referred to the supplemental staff report distributed to the Planning Commission regarding certain aspects of the subject application. He pointed out that Mr. Robert Blake, property owner at 2500 Seaview Avenue, formerly the Seaview Hotel, has concerns regarding the application. He cited that the staff report addresses private views and historical value. Mr. Hewicker commented that there has been no application for any historical designation at 2500 Seaview Avenue at this time. He commented that regardless of whether or not the landmark hotel has any historical designation, does not mean that the City has to modify the development rights that would be permitted for the four unit residential condominium I I ( ! project across the street in terms of its size or Iconfiguration. -17- MINUTES April 10, 1986 C F [f f 9 9 Z C v > v m c z M W = D r 0 , 0 m ( City of Newport Beach a _ historical overlay zone which could have been applied to various properties within the City. He said that two .properties that the City had in mind in 1976 were the Balboa Pavilion, and the Lovell residence located on West Ocean Front whose architect was a protege of Frank Lloyd Wright. Mr. Hewicker advised that Amendment No. 465 was forwarded to the City Council, whereby the Amendment was tabled by the City Council. Mr. Hewicker stated that there has been no activity for nine years as far as establishing a historical overlay zone; however, on May 28, 1985, the City Council adopted Council Policy A -15 which provides for the designation of historical properties and buildings within Newport Beach. Mr.. Hewicker pointed out that the application for the historical designation largely lies with the individual property owner and the policy requires that upon application to the City Manager, the City Manager will forward the application to the Parksi,:;Beaches, and Recreation Commission, the Arts • Commission land the Newport Beach Historical Society for review and recommendation prior to City Council determination. He said that to date there have been two sites which have been placed on a historical register file as maintained by the City Clerk: the Jolly -Roger Restaurant on Balboa Island on October 15, 1985, ;:and the Balboa Inn on December 20, 1985. He commented that a conservation agreement dedicated to the City would leave the exterior appearance of the Balboa Inn in its current restored state. Mr. Hewicker referred to the supplemental staff report distributed to the Planning Commission regarding certain aspects of the subject application. He pointed out that Mr. Robert Blake, property owner at 2500 Seaview Avenue, formerly the Seaview Hotel, has concerns regarding the application. He cited that the staff report addresses private views and historical value. Mr. Hewicker commented that there has been no application for any historical designation at 2500 Seaview Avenue at this time. He commented that regardless of whether or not the landmark hotel has any historical designation, does not mean that the City has to modify the development rights that would be permitted for the four unit residential condominium I I ( ! project across the street in terms of its size or Iconfiguration. -17- MINUTES COMM15SIONERS C 0 C o 0 £ a 9 i z c v m m s m z a s n Z r a x z W O i o o M m IC o m a r r Z a a a z m m 0 C April 10, 1986 of Newport Beach In reference to the operation of the aforementioned hotel, Mr. Hewicker commented that for over five years the complex has been operated as an apartment building, and under the City's current regulations, there is no legal nonconforming right that the owner of that property would have to restore that particular building back to a hotel use. He said that in fact, under the R -3 zoning of the property, a hotel is not listed as a permitted use either automatically or under the approval of a use permit; however, the R -3 zoning does permit a motel use, subject to the securing of a use permit which the owner could request. The Municipal Code requires 1 parking space for each motel unit on a site, and if he would retain all 19 units, 19 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Hewicker said that as an apartment use, the building is nonconforming with respect to parking in that the current Code requires 1.5 parking spaces for each of the apartment units on the property, one of which must be covered for each dwelling unit. Mr. Hewicker said that at the present time the property is nonconforming with respect to parking, inasmuch as there are only a few covered parking spaces on site and there are some open parking spaces adjacent to Carnation Avenue. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City did receive a request from Mr. Blake to demolish the covered parking on the property; however, the demolition permit was not approved on the basis that he would be removing required parking. Mr. Hewicker commented that City Council Policy P -1 requires owners of property within the coastal zone to provide replacement housing for persons of lower or moderate income prior to the construction of new residential or non- coastal dependent uses on a site. He said that staff has had extensive discussion with Mr. Blake regarding the requirement for replacement housing on his property and that Mr. Blake intends to go ahead with a visitor serving type of use on his property so that the requirement of replacement housing may be eliminated. Mr. Hewicker commented that this type of use would probably be to his best advantage since he would only have to demonstrate that replacement housing is not feasible. -18- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 10, 1986 x0 c o � _ a n y m 2 Z c m D m Z � Z V' o X O O X s Z r m City OI NC.YVpOCI Beach s a a through the property owner filing an application, and ROLL CALL whether there a list of old or significant buildings I INDEX Mr. Hewicker advised that according to the City's records regarding ownership of the former hotel site, Mr. Blake purchased the property during the early part of February, 1986. He said that prior to that time, the site was under management of the former management company which had operated it as an apartment building. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Finance Department does not show any record of a Transient Occupancy Tax ever being collected on the property, which is an indication that the City has no record in the Finance Department that the building was ever used as a hotel in recent times. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the City has a received an application from Mr. Blake? Mr. Hewicker replied that there has been no request to designate the former hotel as a historical site. He pointed out that the Planning Commission permitted the demolition of the former hotel in 1980 when a six unit residential condominium complex was approved on the property. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the Planning Department finds out about sites with historical significance through the property owner filing an application, and whether there a list of old or significant buildings that the City takes into consideration? She pointed out that the staff report dated September, 1980, for the previously approved Use Permit No. 1948 on property • located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, does not indicate that the hotel on the site was the first building in Corona del Mar. Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Department does not have a list of properties that would identify historical sites. He pointed out that there is a Newport Beach Historical Society, and there have been efforts by the City to attempt to identify historical properties and to establish a historical overlay zone which would limit what could be done to a building as far as the architectural style. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the City has a received an application from Mr. Blake? Mr. Hewicker replied that there has been no request to designate the former hotel as a historical site. He pointed out that the Planning Commission permitted the demolition of the former hotel in 1980 when a six unit residential condominium complex was approved on the property. -19- Commissioner Koppelman asked that when the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared regarding the subject application, if the former hotel adjacent to the subject property was taken into consideration? Mr. Hewicker replied that if there had been a full Environmental Impact Report, the document would have been submitted to the State Clearing House, and the State Clearing House would then have forwarded copies of the Environmental Document to various -19- ROLL "/V\ISSIONERS April 10, 1986 J F C O O Z r m z c m y m z C z m o; 0 0 W A z, z T m 1 City of Newport Beach agencies. Mr. Hewicker explained that a four unit residential development is categorically exempt under CEQA, but because of the location on a bluff, the City required the environmental documentation. Staff prepared a check list for the Initial Study and then prepared a Negative Declaration. In reference to the applicant's project description of the surrounding properties, including information on any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, Commissioner Koppelman noted that the applicant replied that "the site is exclusively residential and consists of a combination of multi- family and single family residences ", and that there was no mention at that time that there was a structure of historical significance nearby. She questioned if under CEQA or applicable laws, since this site has not presently obtained any historical recognition under Federal, State, or City levels, the necessity under the law as to whether or not there should have been an indication as to the structure's existence. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that CEQA requires a categorical exemption or an Initial Study in the preparation of a Negative Declaration, and does not impose an affirmative obligation on an applicant to seek potential historical sites around the neighborhood. She said that CEQA requires consideration of existing historical sites and potential historical sites if brought to the attention of the agency doing the determination. Ms. Korade pointed out that in this case staff answered the Environmental Checklist question: "will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant architectural historical site structure, object or building ", and determined that the answer was "no ". Commissioner Koppelman asked if during the preparation of the checklist whether staff was aware of the existence of the building? Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission received an application regarding the former hotel site in 1980, and that there have been other discretionary permits on Carnation Avenue. He said that staff has a 1976 newspaper clipping regarding the former Palisades Hotel. • 1111111 j Commissioner Koppelman asked if the historical aspect I of the site was taken into consideration? Mr. Hewicker replied that staff has never distinguished whether the -20- MINUTES INDEX " "" "' April 10, 1986 x c o F a v x y z c 9 m r v a m m z C z y z o S m a O O j City of Newport Beach 9 2 m building should have a historical designation. He said that preserving views from private property has not been the direction of the Planning Commission or the City Council. Commissioner Koppelman commented that she was not referring to the preservation of views, but about any recognition that may be required under CEQA. She opined that if Mr. Blake had not written the letter there would not have been an indication that the former hotel was located on the property. Ms. Korade stated that Mr. Blake's letter was dated March 31, 1986, and was received by the Planning Department on April 1, 1986. She commented that the signature on the Negative Declaration was on April 1, 1986. She said that the letter had been received and considered by the Planning Department on the date the Initial Study was done prior to making the determination of the affect of the project on the historical aspect of the building. Mr. Hewicker stated that Mr. Blake met with Sandra Genis of the Planning Department on Friday, March 28, 1986, and Ms. Genis met with Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, in reference to the Negative Declaration, on Monday, March 31, 1986. Commissioner Turner cited that the Federal legislature in 1980, gave the property owners an opportunity to help preserve old structures and gain a tax advantage. He asked if the City has to approve the building as a historical site before qualifying under State law? He asked if in this case, in order for this to be designated a historical structure, would it be necessary for the present owner to restore the former hotel to its original use, or merely be required to restore the facade and continue to operate the structure as a hotel? Ms. Korade replied that the City's designation is one of the factors that the Federal and State governments will consider prior to awarding or refusing a historical designation, but the City's designation is not required if the applicant goes directly to the State and Federal government. In response to what is required to get a State and Federal historical designation, Ms. Korade replied that this would be on a location basis, and after the applicant has received a State and Federal designation, there • I I I I would not be any obligations on the owner, unless there are Federal monies used. She said that there are tax benefits, and the owner does not have to comply with -21- MINUTES ROLL April 10, 1986 x x C o 0 f a v = + v z m c m> m z C A 0 9 a r m City of Newport Beach c z 0 o C o 0 all Building Code requirements. She pointed out that the owner may have to restore the facade or the hotel use may have to be restored prior to securing the historical designation, but after the designation is secured, the historical use may not have to be maintained. In response to Commissioner Turner's inquiry regarding the length of time to process an application, Ms. Korade replied that the State Historical Preservation office informed her there is a minimum of one year to obtain a State designation and then the application is forwarded to Washington, D. C. to receive a Federal designation. She said that the applicant must receive a State historical designation before a Federal designation. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. . 11111111 Mr. Ian Somers, 1111 Bayside Drive, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Somers stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A" In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Somers stated that the applicant has an option to purchase the subject property. Mr. Somers stated that the proposed development will be constructed away from the slope, and he described the layout of the development. MINUTES _22_ In response to Commissioner Koppelman's question regarding the excavation of the slope, Mr. Scott Crawford, Lanco Civil Engineers, 25741 White Sands Street, Dana Point, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Crawford explained that the excavation for the project will be 5 feet into the natural grade. He commented that a preliminary soils investigation will be prepared if the application is approved. Mr. Crawford stated that there is an existing report . for the adjacent vacant lot which states that the slope is very stable. Mr. Crawford commented that the applicant will be working with the -City staff regarding drainage and improvements so that the rain water will • not go over the slope. _22_ COMMISSIONERS z z c O S E v > z m y m Z M Z x= T m April 10, 1986 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Robert Blake, 1550 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blake rebuked Mr. Hewicker's aforementioned statement regarding the request for a demolition permit by stating that the garage was unsafe and was only used as storage space. Mr. Blake emphatically stated that he had informed the Planning Department of the historical significance of the former hotel site. He said that he wanted to try to avoid demolishing the former hotel site, because of the historical significance. Mr. Blake pointed out that Senator Robbins' office has informed him that ninety days. after April 15, 1986, the former hotel site would be reviewed for State Historical approval. Mr. Blake referred to a letter that he has received from Supervisor Tom Riley's office, and that he has spoken to Robert W. Selway III, each regarding the former hotel site. Mr. Blake stated that he will have attorneys prepare a report for non - compliance of CEQA, that he is not just interested in preserving the view, but to upgrade the economical value of the property. Mr. Blake declared that he will ask the City Council, for a historical overlay zone for his property, and an ordinance to protect buildings such as the former hotel. Mr. Blake rebuked several of Mr. Hewicker's aforementioned statements regarding the former hotel's operation. At this time Mr. Blake's remarks had taken the full five minutes awarded during a public hearing and he asked the Planning Commission for an additional five minutes. Commissioner Goff and Commissioner Turner informed Mr. Blake that if the requested five minutes are approved then he should only discuss how the historical value of the former hotel relates to the Motion llxl11 proposed development. Motion was made to allow Mr. Ayes x x x x x x Blake an additional three minutes. Motion voted on, Absent x MOTION APPROVED. Mr. Blake vehemently commented upon the historical value of the former hotel site's impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Blake requested that the proposed application be continued for an additional two weeks to allow additional time to prepare adequate reports. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Blake if he knew that the former hotel had any historical significance at the time Mr. Blake purchased the property? Mr. Blake replied that he became aware of the historical -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 10, 1986 x x c o � x £ y t Beach INDEX significance before the escrow closed in February, 1986. Commissioner Turner asked if Mr. Blake anticipated any problems for constructing a residential condominium project on his property? Mr. Blake replied that the worst problem that could happen. would be to vacate the former hotel and leave the building empty for a year, and then tear the structure down, which would eliminate the requirement of replacement housing. Mr. Blake stated that he was aware that a project had been previously approved, and so he did not foresee any further problems. Discussion followed between Commissioner Turner and Mr. Blake regarding whether or not the operation is a hotel, and Mr. Blake advised that the operation is a hotel and has always been a hotel. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding economic obsolescence, Mr. Blake replied that the value to the community to see a renovated building, or the value of any person who stays at the hotel known for the hotel's view is greatly diminished because of a structure being placed directly in said view. He commented that the loss of the view would create an economic hardship, in addition to the cost of renovating the former hotel. Commissioner Koppelman asked Mr. Blake if he has hired a staff to process the historical designation. Mr. Blake replied that he has hired a consultant and a local historian to write a book about the former hotel. In response to Commissioner Koppelman's inquiry regarding the start of the hotel renovation, Mr. Blake replied that he was informed that he would be able to begin renovation of the hotel prior to the hotel's historical designation. Discussion followed between Commissioner Turner and Mr. Blake regarding the legal opinions previously made by Mr. Blake's attorney to Mr. Blake, and the preparation of that opinion. Commissioner Kurlander advised Mr. Blake that a building of the requested height and greater mass could be constructed on the subject property without any discretionary review, and he opined that the issue is whether to construct a condominium development or 11 apartments on the subject property. Mr. Blake replied that he will be asking the City Council for special -24- T M 2 c m y m z a s `= a N z r° °; ° x °j M m o m s � City of Z z z s z r m m t Beach INDEX significance before the escrow closed in February, 1986. Commissioner Turner asked if Mr. Blake anticipated any problems for constructing a residential condominium project on his property? Mr. Blake replied that the worst problem that could happen. would be to vacate the former hotel and leave the building empty for a year, and then tear the structure down, which would eliminate the requirement of replacement housing. Mr. Blake stated that he was aware that a project had been previously approved, and so he did not foresee any further problems. Discussion followed between Commissioner Turner and Mr. Blake regarding whether or not the operation is a hotel, and Mr. Blake advised that the operation is a hotel and has always been a hotel. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding economic obsolescence, Mr. Blake replied that the value to the community to see a renovated building, or the value of any person who stays at the hotel known for the hotel's view is greatly diminished because of a structure being placed directly in said view. He commented that the loss of the view would create an economic hardship, in addition to the cost of renovating the former hotel. Commissioner Koppelman asked Mr. Blake if he has hired a staff to process the historical designation. Mr. Blake replied that he has hired a consultant and a local historian to write a book about the former hotel. In response to Commissioner Koppelman's inquiry regarding the start of the hotel renovation, Mr. Blake replied that he was informed that he would be able to begin renovation of the hotel prior to the hotel's historical designation. Discussion followed between Commissioner Turner and Mr. Blake regarding the legal opinions previously made by Mr. Blake's attorney to Mr. Blake, and the preparation of that opinion. Commissioner Kurlander advised Mr. Blake that a building of the requested height and greater mass could be constructed on the subject property without any discretionary review, and he opined that the issue is whether to construct a condominium development or 11 apartments on the subject property. Mr. Blake replied that he will be asking the City Council for special -24- COMMISSIONERS x x c o "t y a a v m r v 2 c m y M Z C 2 H o i O O W z M= T m a April 10, 1986 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX protection relative to that. Commissioner Turner agreed with Commissioner Kurlander's statement. Mr. Harvey Pease, 314 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pease stated his concerns regarding the parking problem in the area. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the former hotel site as a site for motel type usage, Mr. Pease replied that his opinion has been that the area would be upgraded. Chairman Person noted that adjacent to Mr. Pease's property at the end of the abandoned Carnation Avenue there is not a guard rail. Mr. Pease replied that a guard rail will be installed in less than two weeks. Chairman Person commented that this is a very dangerous condition. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker regarding the status of Mr. Pease's private parking area, Mr. Pease replied that he is currently unable to park automobiles in his two car garage because he has just recently moved into his home and the covered area is currently being used for storage. Ms. Barbara Tappan, 1007 Dolphin Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission requesting that the subject application be denied. Ms. Tappan presented background information regarding the former hotel. She said that six years ago she researched the former hotel and discovered that the hotel was the first structure in Corona del Mar, wherein she wrote to the City Council and the Newport Beach Historical Society. In reference to the staff report, she read "that this project will not have any significant environmental impact ", and she noted the staff report's reference to the old Seaview Hotel. She further stated her concern regarding the two foot encroachment into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue and the impact that the encroachment could have on the parking. Ms. Tappan stated that the loss of view would distract from the former hotel, and she noted that CEQA must be taken into consideration. Ms. Tappan expanded upon the historical significance of the former hotel. Chairman Person asked if the Planning Commission approved or denied the subject application, would that decision affect the ability of Mr. Blake to obtain historical designation on the former hotel site? Ms. Korade replied that she has not seen the view from the second story of the former hotel. She said that there -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 10, 1986 z c o � x a o p v m 1WZ'-mZ,rQx c m s m a l City of Newport Beach z 0 0 r o O ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX would be a need to look at the original purpose of the hotel in 1905, the view corridor, and whether or not the view was an integral part of the historical setting. She pointed out that in line of the testimony and current evidence before the Planning Commission, that it would appear that the view from the hotel is not of historical significance, and so the approval of the subject residential condominium would not affect the ability of the former hotel to receive a historical designation. She pointed out that the view has changed during the past 80 years, and the area is currently zoned R -3. She noted that the view may now be impacted now from the second floor, and since there has been a gradual eroding of view over the years that the historical attributes of that view at this time are questionable. Mr. Ian Somers reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Somers responded to previous testimony by stating that the proposed project would not • detrimentally impact the former hotel; that the current zoning allows for the proposed structure to have a second story; that the height of the proposed residential condominium project would be an additional seven to eight feet above the existing structure on the site; that the eight covered parking spaces provided are two more parking spaces than what is required by the City, and in addition to the eight parking spaces, four parking spaces will be allowed in the driveway; and that the two foot encroachment includes a pot shelf which is an architectural feature. Mr. Somers stated that the R -3 zoning permits ten units to be built on the site, and the proposed development includes only four units. Mr. Robert Blake reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blake asked that the Planning Commission continue this item for an additional two weeks so that his attorney may have an opportunity to properly study and determine the subject application. Ms. Pat Hug, Park Newport, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission, as a member of several historical societies. Ms. Hug recommended that Mr. Blake's request for a continuation be approved so as to I I I I ( ! give Mr. Blake an opportunity to make a comprehensive Ipresentation. -26- COrSIONERI April lo, 1986 �x c o = ; z z motion. Commissioner Turner cited that the historical O 9 O O m = � m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I 1 1 I I I I I INDEX Mr. Ian Somers reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Somers objected to a two week continuation, and he stated that he has been extremely diligent working with the staff in order to comply with all of the zoning requirements. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman commented that she has contacted various people that Mr. Blake previously referred to regarding the former hotel site. She further commented that she understands Ms. Korade's reluctance to say definitely whether this project .would affect the historical significance of the former hotel site, because there is an "integrity of sight" criteria, and she is not certain what that means in terms of Mr. Blake's proposal. Commissioner Koppelman opined that there is an effort on the part of Mr. Blake to maintain and preserve something that has some integrity, and a great deal of historical significance for Corona del M I III Ixl I I Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to continue this item to the April 24, 1986, Planning. Commission meeting to allow Mr. Blake and his advisors additional time. _27_ Commissioner Turner stated that he will not support the motion. Commissioner Turner cited that the historical designation will take a considerable amount of time. He said that he does not understand what additional information Mr. Blake will be able to bring back to the Planning Commission within two weeks other than the opinion of his attorney, and he questioned if Mr. Blake would be able to tell the Planning Commission at that time how he will achieve the historical designation. Commissioner Turner opined that without additional information to make a determination, all the Planning Commission would be doing is postponing the decision at the expense of the applicant, and that the Planning Commission is. losing sight of the fact that the applicant has his rights in this matter. Commissioner Turner stated that the applicant is complying basically within the guidelines, that the applicant is not asking for anything more than any other applicant has asked for in the same general area, and Commissioner Turner opined that if the Planning Commission chose to approve • the application as written, the proposed development would not infringe upon the rights of Mr. Blake to have his property designated as a historical location. _27_ ROLL • Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion. He opined that the former hotel probably does have some historical value inasmuch as the building is 81 years old. Commissioner Goff pointed out that his concern would be whether or not the proposed development or future developments would have any impact on the historical significance of the former hotel, and that would be the testimony he would expect in two weeks. Chairman Person stated that he would not support the motion. He opined that an attorney would not be able to tell the Planning Commission or any other group in two weeks or in a year whether or not the former hotel would be designated a historical building because that decision is made by the State Historical Resources Commission before the application goes back to Washington D. C. Chairman Person stated that Mr. Blake contacted him regarding the subject application before Chairman Person was aware of the subject application, and urged him at that time to continue the item, and Mr. Blake had contacted him several times since the initial contact. Chairman Person pointed out that Mr. Blake has had an opportunity to contact an attorney and have that attorney present this evening. Chairman Person opined that the request for the continuance is a detriment to the applicant. He commented that the issue as to whether or not the former hotel across the street from the proposed application is going to be hindered in obtaining a historical designation has nothing to do with the application, and is purely one of economics, and the economic viability of that structure as it exists. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She pointed out that she has never had an application involving a historical site come up at the very last minute, and that she would like to give Mr. Blake more time to come up with additional information pertaining to the answer Ms. Korade previously gave regarding the integrity of the sight as far as the view is concerned. She opined that this has to be determined at a higher level. Commissioner Winburn advised that she would like the information within the next two weeks. MINUTES April 10, 1986 x x c o n v m z C M m y m z M C z N z p r Q T o n= m fl City of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion. He opined that the former hotel probably does have some historical value inasmuch as the building is 81 years old. Commissioner Goff pointed out that his concern would be whether or not the proposed development or future developments would have any impact on the historical significance of the former hotel, and that would be the testimony he would expect in two weeks. Chairman Person stated that he would not support the motion. He opined that an attorney would not be able to tell the Planning Commission or any other group in two weeks or in a year whether or not the former hotel would be designated a historical building because that decision is made by the State Historical Resources Commission before the application goes back to Washington D. C. Chairman Person stated that Mr. Blake contacted him regarding the subject application before Chairman Person was aware of the subject application, and urged him at that time to continue the item, and Mr. Blake had contacted him several times since the initial contact. Chairman Person pointed out that Mr. Blake has had an opportunity to contact an attorney and have that attorney present this evening. Chairman Person opined that the request for the continuance is a detriment to the applicant. He commented that the issue as to whether or not the former hotel across the street from the proposed application is going to be hindered in obtaining a historical designation has nothing to do with the application, and is purely one of economics, and the economic viability of that structure as it exists. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She pointed out that she has never had an application involving a historical site come up at the very last minute, and that she would like to give Mr. Blake more time to come up with additional information pertaining to the answer Ms. Korade previously gave regarding the integrity of the sight as far as the view is concerned. She opined that this has to be determined at a higher level. Commissioner Winburn advised that she would like the information within the next two weeks. MINUTES COMMISSIONERS April lo, 1986 7 C o �. 9 y - v m z c m y ,q z C Z m o x o 0 i = City of Newport Beach D _ m Mr. Hewicker informed the Planning Commission that the requested information would need to be submitted on Wednesday, April 16, 1986, in order to be distributed to the Planning Commission on Friday, April 18, 1986. He stated that if the information would not be distributed until the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 1986, the staff would have no time to respond. Commissioner Koppelman commented that maybe the Planning Commission should give Mr. Blake additional time. Ms. Korade stated that the only legal issue pertaining to this application pertains to CEQA, which is whether or not;:.a Negative Declaration or an Environmental ImpactReport is appropriate. She further stated that whether' there is a pending historical designation or not on the former hotel site may impact on the decision the Planning Commission makes under CEQA. Ms. Korade advised that the sole issue is whether or not the Initial Study and Negative Declaration is appropriate. Ms, XCp Ade' advised that she and staff continue to feel that the Negative Declaration is appropriate. Motion was voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3194, Ayes x x x Resubdivision No. 824, and Residential Coastal Noes x x x Development Permit No. 11 to the Planning Commission Absent x Meeting of April 24, 1986. MOTION FAILED. C MINUTES In response to a statement made by Mr. Blake regarding Chairman Person's potential conflict of interest relative to the Balboa Inn and Griswold's, Incorporated, Ms. Korade stated that the City Attorney's office has analyzed any possible conflict of interest and has determined in advance that there is none. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would abstain from the voting on this project because she felt that she did not have sufficient evidence at hand to make an informed decision. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she did not feel that she had sufficient information in order to make an informed decision, and she stated that she would also abstain. -29- INDEX COMMISSIONERS April 10, 1986 x x c o � x z c m y m z C z N 0 C O O C n= A= T m I City of Newport Beach Commissioner Turner stated that he felt that he had sufficient information to make an informed decision, and he felt that he had delved into the issue very Motion x thoroughly. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. Ayes x x x x 3194, Resubdivision No. 824, and Residential Coastal Abstain x x Development Permit No: 11, subject to the findings and Absent x conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3194 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval except for minor encroachments into the required 10 foot front yard setback for two pot shelves and a wing wall. MINUTES 5. That the proposed modification to permit two pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback 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 improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifica- tion is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. -30- INDEX CGMMISS )NERS April 10, 1996 X c o 9 9 x IM w v r v m z c m y m 2 a 2 N O r O o A Z 9 z r m I City of Newport Beach 6. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3194 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. • 11111111 2. That all construction shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, which regulates height. 3. That the driveway entrance shall be designed to provide a slope acceptable to the Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. 4. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. 5. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. -31- MINUTES 8. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and.geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 9. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 10. On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and /or Public Works Departments. 11. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 824 shall be fulfilled. • 12. That two garage spaces (including one tandem space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Resubdivision No. 824 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. • 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. -32- MINUTES April 10, 1986 xa c o i y S 9 z c 1 m y m m z C a w 0 S o m> T 0 T I City of Newport Beach z a z y z n m 8. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and.geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 9. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 10. On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and /or Public Works Departments. 11. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 824 shall be fulfilled. • 12. That two garage spaces (including one tandem space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Resubdivision No. 824 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. • 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. -32- MINUTES V%1VUJOwivLINJ April 10, 1986 C 0 C o �+ f a v M c m approved by the Public Works Department. Roadway z y m z width shall be 15 feet from center line to top of C 2 W a N O i 0 T 0 curb. z, z m I City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill WDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a build- ing permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling, unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. • 5. That curb, gutter, pavement and a 5 foot sidewalk be constructed along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage, and that the curb grades be approved by the Public Works Department. Roadway width shall be 15 feet from center line to top of curb. l 6. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 11 FINDINGS: 1. That a feasibility analysis has been performed which has indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing on or off -site in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development has met the require- ments of City Council Policy P -1. -33- ROLL COMMISSIONERS �c F c o ° x 1 9 C 9 m z c m a m = 0 a 9= r O 2 Z N ° ; ° ° City of 9 O m a r 9 Z y E T m A CONDITION: April 10, 1986 Beach 1. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3194 and Resubdivision No. 824 be met. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Variance No. 1128 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R -1 District which exceeds 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a corner of a pot shelf on the second floor of the structure to encroach 6 inches into the required 5 foot front yard setback and to allow a single car carport on the front one half of the lot. LOCATION: Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 11, .Block A32, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 2618 Cove Street, on the northeasterly side of Cove Street, between Fernleaf Avenue and unimproved Dahlia Avenue, in China Cove. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Ernest and Donna Schroeder, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Brian Jeannette, 470 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission, on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Jeannette stated that the proposed single family structure consists of 2,700 square feet of total buildable area. Mr. Jeannette pointed out that because of the lack of parking within the China Cove area that the applicants are requesting a third parking space in the front one half of the lot. Mr. Jeannette stated that the applicant agrees with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A ". -34- MINUTES Ttam Nn_7 V1128 Approved ROLL V \IV \IJJIVIVLI \J April 10, 1986 x x C O o A 9 2 Z c m '> y m Z C Z Z A W 0 3 0 0 T Z a Z m City of Newport Beach Mr. Ernest Schroeder, 239 Heliotrope Avenue, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schroeder presented a brief summary of why the applicants are interested in constructing a home in China Cove. He cited that there is a need for visitor parking which they have requested. Mr. Schroeder stated that the neighbors have signed a petition approving the dwelling after reviewing the plans. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1128, subject Ayes x x X x x x to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent x Commissioner Turner stated that he would support the motion. He recommended that the Planning Commission initiate an action to review the permitted Floor Area Ratio in China Cove. Chairman Person advised that he will be initiating a • motion to attempt to look at the Floor Area Ratio of the China Cove area. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. He suggested that he would be making a motion to look at the Floor Area Ratio in China Cove based on the size of the lots and the attitude of the community. He opined that if this is going to be the unwritten policy of the Planning Commission and the City Council, then it would be appropriate to look at the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to that area. Motion voted on to approve Variance No. 1128, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the lot is considerably smaller than most lots in Corona del Mar. • I I I 2. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted Floor Area Ratio of 1.5 times the buildable area is necessary for -35- MINUTES INDEX ROLL April 10, 1986 x x ]) S Z f 9 m Z a= z m i City of Newport Beach Z N v r 0 0 the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the limited lot area severely restricts the ability to design a home containing adequate living space. 3. That the proposed pot shelf encroachment into the required front yard setback is minor in nature and the approval of the requested encroachment will not, under the circumstances of this 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 that the proposed modifi- cation is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. I t I I I 4. That the view of the open carport located on the front one -half of the lot will be adequately • screened from the street and adjoining properties. In addition, the approval of an open carport on the front one -half of the lot will not under the circumstances of this particular case, be detri- mental 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 improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 5. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the residence shall not contain more than 2,706.54 sq. ft. of gross floor area (1.97 x buildable area). -36- MINUTES CO"SS�120NERS MINUTES April 10, 1986 LOCATION: Lots 3, 4 and a portion of Lots 29 and 30, Block 23, Newport Beach Tract, • c z W o r 0 0 M a z A= T m City of Newport Beach between 23rd Street and 24th Street, ROLL CALL I adjacent to the Newport Pier parking I INDEX 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a minimum 2" rise in the driveway be provided to prevent drainage from entering the garage, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the proposed driveway shall not exceed a maximum slope of twenty percent or a maximum change in slope of fourteen percent. Said drive- way design shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 6. That the view of the proposed carport area shall be screened from the street and adjoining proper- ties by five foot high solid side walls and a five foot high entry gate. Said screening shall be approved by the Planning Department. • 7. That the applicants shall record a covenant to hold the subject property as a single building site in accordance with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3195 (Public Hearing) I Item No.8 Request to permit the expansion of an existing hotel I UP3195 located in the C -1 District. Said proposal includes a request to establish a new ground floor lobby area which will be used for guest check -in and related Removed From seating in conjunction with the service of a contin- ental breakfast to hotel guests only. The proposal Calendar also includes a request to establish a related kitchen bar, manager's office and bathrooms. -37- LOCATION: Lots 3, 4 and a portion of Lots 29 and 30, Block 23, Newport Beach Tract, • located at 2306 West Ocean Front, on the northerly side of West Ocean Front, between 23rd Street and 24th Street, adjacent to the Newport Pier parking lot. -37- MMISSIVNLKS April 10, 1986 MINUTES A X C c O O ZONE: C -1 2 i - o m z c m y m z APPLICANT: Piero Serra, Newport Beach c z w o; 0 0 Z a a A= T m City of Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion x. Motion was made to remove Use Permit No. 3195 from Ayes x x x x x calendar. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent INDEX • PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -38- ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Piero Serra, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion x. Motion was made to remove Use Permit No. 3195 from Ayes x x x x x calendar. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent x x • ,t A D D I T I 0 N A L B U S I N E S S: Additional Business Chairman Person made a motion that staff prepare a report for discussion by the Planning Commission within China 90 days in conjunction with the possibility of Cove Motion x increasin 4 the permitted Floor Area Ratio in China Ayes x x x x x Cove. Motion voted On, MOTION CARRIED. Absent x A D J O U R N M E N T: 10:20 p.m. Adjournment t • PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -38-