Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/1986■ I COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers . C o i TIME: 7:30 p.m. Z c m m i DATE: May 8, 1986 m o zz > mm City of Newport Beach - ROLL 2 0 O i 0 0 I a z y= m m x ROLL CALlxlxlxlxLlxlxl INDEX Present All Commissioners Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer . Dee Edwards, Secretary � * x Minutes of April 24, 1986: Minutes of 4 -24 -86 Chairman Person referred to Item No. 3, Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) , page 10 of the subject Minutes, and requested that the subject Minutes reflect that the applicant, Mr. Helmut Reiss, agreed to the addition of Motion x Condition. No. 19 to the Use Permit. Motion was made to All Ayes approve the amended April 24, 1986, Planning Commission . Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * x x Request for Continuance: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item Continuance No. 6, Use Permit No. 3195 and Resubdivision No. 826 regarding the expansion of an existing hotel located at 2306 West Ocean Front,, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1986. Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No. 6 to the Planning All Ayes Commission Meeting of May 22; 1986. Motion voted.. on, MOTION CARRIED.. . COMMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 MINUTES x x co g 1 V a ro m z c m i m z M 0 a z w m City of Newport Beach 9 ROLL CALL INDEX - A. Use Permit No. 3122 - (Amended) (Continued Public Item No.I Hearing) UP3122(A) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of a commercial building and Waiver of related parking structure known as Edgewater Place, on Parcel property located in the C -1 District. The proposed Map amendment includes a request to delete Condition No. 2 Requirement which consists of the fulfillment of all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 797. Approved 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. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Edgewater Place, Balboa OWNERS: Mark Howard, Don Franklin,.Roland Vallely, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that since the Edgewater Place project was approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1985, the City Council adopted Amendment No. 633 on April 28, 1986, clarifying the existing language for the term "Building Site" currently in the Municipal Code. He pointed out that . Amendment No. 633 will become effective May 28, 1986, which would be one day prior to the expiration of the appeal period of the subject item, in the event that the Planning Commission were to,act upon this item this 1 1 E -2- May 8, 1986 Beach evening. Mr. Hewicker stated that the staff is of the opinion that the Planning Commission could proceed with this item regardless of whether or not the language had been modified, and that staff is recommending additional findings and conditions which would incorporate both the language as it exists in the Municipal Code and language which will exist as of May 28, 1986. Mr. Hewicker recommended the revised findings of the Waiver of Parcel Map as follows: 1. That the building site is under multiple owner- ships and lease hold interests which prevented the applicant from combining the properties into a single building site. 2. That the applicant has secured a thirty year loan to finance the improvements planned for the site. That the estate in real property is of sufficient length (forty years remaining) to guarantee that the lots which constitute the building site will • I I I I I I be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvement to be placed on the site. 3. That all requirements of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and Policies of the City of Newport Beach which would otherwise be accomplished by the com- bining of parcels can be met through the imposi- tion of the Conditions noted below. 4. That this request complies with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the changes as adopted by the City Council on April 28, 1986. Mr. Hewicker recommended that the following Condition No. 7 be added to the Waiver of the Parcel Map: "That prior to issuance of a Building Permit for construction of the improvements authorized by Use Permit No. 3122, the applicant shall prove to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the applicant has possessory interest in the parcels upon which improvements are to be constructed ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner . regarding the recommended Finding No. 2, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant advised by telephone that the applicant has secured a thirty year loan to finance -3- MINUTES X i SO y v m a c m o m a W x C m a o a r 0 2 M i�� City I of a s a 9 a T m May 8, 1986 Beach evening. Mr. Hewicker stated that the staff is of the opinion that the Planning Commission could proceed with this item regardless of whether or not the language had been modified, and that staff is recommending additional findings and conditions which would incorporate both the language as it exists in the Municipal Code and language which will exist as of May 28, 1986. Mr. Hewicker recommended the revised findings of the Waiver of Parcel Map as follows: 1. That the building site is under multiple owner- ships and lease hold interests which prevented the applicant from combining the properties into a single building site. 2. That the applicant has secured a thirty year loan to finance the improvements planned for the site. That the estate in real property is of sufficient length (forty years remaining) to guarantee that the lots which constitute the building site will • I I I I I I be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvement to be placed on the site. 3. That all requirements of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and Policies of the City of Newport Beach which would otherwise be accomplished by the com- bining of parcels can be met through the imposi- tion of the Conditions noted below. 4. That this request complies with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the changes as adopted by the City Council on April 28, 1986. Mr. Hewicker recommended that the following Condition No. 7 be added to the Waiver of the Parcel Map: "That prior to issuance of a Building Permit for construction of the improvements authorized by Use Permit No. 3122, the applicant shall prove to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the applicant has possessory interest in the parcels upon which improvements are to be constructed ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner . regarding the recommended Finding No. 2, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant advised by telephone that the applicant has secured a thirty year loan to finance -3- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS c o n x m 2 c m y m 2 a s a Z r w x Z Z z Z= M m May 8, 1986 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX the improvements. He commented that staff does not have possession of the loan documents; however, staff could make the recommendation as part of added Condition No. 7. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Vallely lease has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office to determine the length of the lease, and she referred to recommended Condition No. 7 requesting that the applicant shall prove to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the applicant has possessory interest on all of the parcels upon which improvements will be built. Ms. Korade further stated that there may not be sufficient documents at this time to show the possessory interest in all of the different parcels, and that the provision of those documents would satisfy Condition No. 7. Commissioner Koppelman further requested a statement of the purpose and intent of Amendment No. 633, to the Municipal Code amending Section 20.87.090. Mr. Hewicker explained how the amendment pertains to the definition of the term "Building Site" and provisions for waiver of combining requirements where existing or new buildings are planned to cross existing property lines. Mr. Hewicker replied to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman that the original amendment was to encourage the combining of parcels to try to eliminate. small businesses on individual lots and to try to encourage large scale commercial /industrial development. He said that the same provisions also apply to residential development except for single family dwellings and duplexes that were exempted from the parcel map requirement, but were required to record a covenant. Donald, Webb, City Engineer, referred to Use Permit No. 3122 and stated that the applicant has requested that he be able to start construction this summer if the subject application is approved and reviewed by staff. Be recommended that Condition No. 20 be added to the subject Use Permit if construction should commence during the summer months, and he pointed out that if there are problems, the construction could be shut down until the end of the summer. Mr. Webb recommended that the Condition No. 4 be added to Exhibit "A" of the subject Use Permit 3122 (Amended) as follows: -4- COMMISSIONERS . May 8, 1986 4. That Condition No. 20 of Use Permit No. 3122 shall be amended to read as follows: Demolition and construction shall not be commenced until September 2, 1986, to avoid peak seasonal traffic, or shall be accomplished in a manner satisfactory to the Planning, Building and Public Works Depart- ments during the period of June 1 or the day after Labor Day. in addition to the criteria specified by each of the above departments, any summertime construction or demolition on the subject property shall conform with the following: a. Earth moving operations: I ( I I I ( I (1) Truck haul operations shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through • Friday. (2) No more than one truck waiting to be loaded and no truck storage on the public streets in the project vicinity. (3) No truck staging areas on the Peninsula (southerly of West Coast Highway). (4) No more than 28 truckloads per day, or an average of four truckloads per hour. (5) One lane of traffic to be maintained on East Bay Avenue and Adams Street at all times. (6) Two lanes of traffic to be maintained on Palm Street at all times. b. Concrete placing operations: (1) Submit to the Public Works Department for approval a plan for traffic and site management for the concrete placing operation in -5- MINUTES INDEX C O n m a v I z c m m z s m o m.° T City of Newport Beach 2 :0 z y= T m 4. That Condition No. 20 of Use Permit No. 3122 shall be amended to read as follows: Demolition and construction shall not be commenced until September 2, 1986, to avoid peak seasonal traffic, or shall be accomplished in a manner satisfactory to the Planning, Building and Public Works Depart- ments during the period of June 1 or the day after Labor Day. in addition to the criteria specified by each of the above departments, any summertime construction or demolition on the subject property shall conform with the following: a. Earth moving operations: I ( I I I ( I (1) Truck haul operations shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through • Friday. (2) No more than one truck waiting to be loaded and no truck storage on the public streets in the project vicinity. (3) No truck staging areas on the Peninsula (southerly of West Coast Highway). (4) No more than 28 truckloads per day, or an average of four truckloads per hour. (5) One lane of traffic to be maintained on East Bay Avenue and Adams Street at all times. (6) Two lanes of traffic to be maintained on Palm Street at all times. b. Concrete placing operations: (1) Submit to the Public Works Department for approval a plan for traffic and site management for the concrete placing operation in -5- MINUTES INDEX "MISSIONERS May 8, 1986 co a y x H 9 m z c m y m z ma a =r c� x z 9 Z Z= m City of Newport Beach advance of beginning the grading. Any modifications to the approved plan shall be submitted and approved three weeks in advance of the placement date. If work is contemplated to begin before 7:00 a.m. or proceed beyond 6:30 p.m, or to be done on Saturday, Sunday or holidays, the City Council must approve the request. (2) No street closures will be allowed. C. Delivery of construction materials to the site: (1) Deliveries can only be made between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. • 11111111 (2) Two lanes of traffic must be maintained on Palm Street at all times. (3) One lane of traffic must be maintained on East Bay Avenue and Adams Street at all times. (4) No storage of any materials, sand, lumber, etc., shall be permitted in the public right of way. d. General provisions: (1) A minimum of 12 feet of clear paved or surfaced area shall be maintained at all times along Edgewater Place. No vehicles shall be parked or driven on Edgewater Place. (2) If, in the opinion of the Building, Public Works or Police Departments, the construction project is causing substantial traffic congestion and /or .a hazard to people in the vicinity of the construction site and /or the Balboa Peninsula area, 'S" MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS C 0 _ C O 0 2 E y 9> v m c= N O r O O M m o X; r M = x 2 9 E n m M May 8, 1986 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX the City reserves the right to require that construction operations cease until the problems have been corrected. If the same problem recurs, the City may require that construction operations cease until September 15. (3) That all contractors and subcontractors be made aware of these conditions and that there be a developers' representative at the site at all times during the construction operation with the authority to shut down operations at the request of appropriate City representatives. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer, Mr. Webb replied that one -half of the block on East Bay Avenue will be set aside for automobile parking and one -half of the block will be set aside for loading and unloading of the construction materials. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Webb replied that the Balboa Improvement Association has not been contacted regarding the proposed construction. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing the applicant. Mr. King stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions as recommended by staff. Mr. King referred to the aforementioned Vallely lease and he stated that there are 57 years remaining on the lease and that the master lease can be made available to the City Attorney. He said that the applicant has a construction loan with the Bank of America, and that the intent of the applicant is to record a permanent loan after the construction is completed. Mr. King commented that the applicant can verify the documentation of the construction loan. He further commented that the applicant is prepared to begin construction, and that the contract has been signed by the contractor. -7- COMMISSIONERS1 May 8, 1986 In referring to the parcel map amendment in the interest of fee ownership of the property, Mr. King advised that Mr. Aubrey Glaser and. Mr. Mark Howard are also owners of the property. He commented that there have been opportunities for Messrs. Glaser, Howard and Vallely to discuss the property lines, and he read the Subordination Agreement that has been signed by the Vallelys wherein there was a description of the subject property. He said that the Vallelys have also signed the Coastal Commission application regarding the subject property. Mr. Lowell Martindale, Attorney representing the Vallely family, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Martindale referred to the May 9, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting, wherein one of the conditions of the use permit was compliance with the parcel map requirement for the combining of the parcels into one building site. He said that the Vallelys were under the assumption that the problem of . fee and leasehold ownership and the crossing of property lines must inherently be addressed by the need to combine the property which has been indicated by the Vallelys on a number of occasions. He stated that the provision for a building site and combining of parcels exists in many cities, and that the requirement in most cities recognizes that when there is building across property lines, that there is a potential for a subsequent sale of subdivided lots which have improvements. He opined that the provision is intended to allow someone who has ownership of smaller subdivided lots in contiguous parcels to resubdivide those lots into a single parcel if the owner wants to develop the lots. He cited that a waiver requirement is typically used to avoid the necessity of resubdividing by joining those lots together by a contractural arrangement. Mr. Martindale opined that the present amendment is being used to cross lease and fee parcels, and is quite dangerous. He further opined that the concept of economic life is being used to justify ignoring the distinction between the leasehold and fee ownership, and the fact that the subject parcels consist of both types of ownership. He said that economic life is a tax concept and has no meaning. Mr. Martindale commented that the lease has the prospect of terminating through either natural expiration or earlier termination by default, creating improvements which exist on.fee property which will not have parking, and creating buildings on the leased ME MINUTES x x n r v Z c m > m Z Z C z 9 m a 9 0 T 0 m z a I City of Newport Beach z In referring to the parcel map amendment in the interest of fee ownership of the property, Mr. King advised that Mr. Aubrey Glaser and. Mr. Mark Howard are also owners of the property. He commented that there have been opportunities for Messrs. Glaser, Howard and Vallely to discuss the property lines, and he read the Subordination Agreement that has been signed by the Vallelys wherein there was a description of the subject property. He said that the Vallelys have also signed the Coastal Commission application regarding the subject property. Mr. Lowell Martindale, Attorney representing the Vallely family, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Martindale referred to the May 9, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting, wherein one of the conditions of the use permit was compliance with the parcel map requirement for the combining of the parcels into one building site. He said that the Vallelys were under the assumption that the problem of . fee and leasehold ownership and the crossing of property lines must inherently be addressed by the need to combine the property which has been indicated by the Vallelys on a number of occasions. He stated that the provision for a building site and combining of parcels exists in many cities, and that the requirement in most cities recognizes that when there is building across property lines, that there is a potential for a subsequent sale of subdivided lots which have improvements. He opined that the provision is intended to allow someone who has ownership of smaller subdivided lots in contiguous parcels to resubdivide those lots into a single parcel if the owner wants to develop the lots. He cited that a waiver requirement is typically used to avoid the necessity of resubdividing by joining those lots together by a contractural arrangement. Mr. Martindale opined that the present amendment is being used to cross lease and fee parcels, and is quite dangerous. He further opined that the concept of economic life is being used to justify ignoring the distinction between the leasehold and fee ownership, and the fact that the subject parcels consist of both types of ownership. He said that economic life is a tax concept and has no meaning. Mr. Martindale commented that the lease has the prospect of terminating through either natural expiration or earlier termination by default, creating improvements which exist on.fee property which will not have parking, and creating buildings on the leased ME MINUTES COMMISSIONERS) May 8, 1986 parcels which will have nonconforming uses. in summary, Mr. Martindale requested the Planning Commission consider imposing conditions that recognize legitimate concerns to protect the City from the prospect of nonconforming uses and substantial retail improvements which will not have adequate parking. Chairman Person referred to Mr. Martindale's testimony during the City Council's public hearing regarding Amendment No. 633, and Mr. Martindale's statement that he had ideas concerning possible amendments or conditions to the Ordinance, and that he would transmit the ideas to the City Attorney's office. Mr. Martindale replied that his recommendations would have no bearing on the subject public hearing; however, Chairman Person commented that Mr. Martindale may have ideas which may be helpful at tackling some of the problems he had just addressed. Mr. Martindale replied that it is inappropriate for the City not to require a developer to address through the ownership of the parcels or through the design of the improvements, whatever is necessary to protect the City's long range interest and to assure that there will be adequate parking and there will not be nonconforming buildings remaining at the termination of the lease, or the lease's expiration or earlier termination. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Martindale replied that the Vallely lease was executed in 1978. Commissioner Turner opined that several use permits have been processed through the City which the Vallelys have known about, and he asked if they, raised any objections to those applications. Mr. Martindale replied that the subject Use Permit No. 3122 as approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1985, imposed a condition to record a parcel map on the property that would create one building site. Mr. Martindale replied to Commissioner Turner that the Vallelys continue to approve the plans. Mr. Martindale stated that it is the contention of the Vallelys that the applicant is under default of the lease. Mr. Martindale advised Commissioner Turner that no objections were necessary to build a parking structure, and he opined that if the Planning Commission would impose a condition to resubdivide the property into a I I I single parcel that it will be necessary for the owners of interest in that property to reach some resolution. Commissioner Turner opined that if the Planning Commission does not impose a condition that the MINUTES INDEX i F C o 0 F m 1 v p 9 z C m o m z C z 0 o s 0 T 0 City of Newport Beach a m parcels which will have nonconforming uses. in summary, Mr. Martindale requested the Planning Commission consider imposing conditions that recognize legitimate concerns to protect the City from the prospect of nonconforming uses and substantial retail improvements which will not have adequate parking. Chairman Person referred to Mr. Martindale's testimony during the City Council's public hearing regarding Amendment No. 633, and Mr. Martindale's statement that he had ideas concerning possible amendments or conditions to the Ordinance, and that he would transmit the ideas to the City Attorney's office. Mr. Martindale replied that his recommendations would have no bearing on the subject public hearing; however, Chairman Person commented that Mr. Martindale may have ideas which may be helpful at tackling some of the problems he had just addressed. Mr. Martindale replied that it is inappropriate for the City not to require a developer to address through the ownership of the parcels or through the design of the improvements, whatever is necessary to protect the City's long range interest and to assure that there will be adequate parking and there will not be nonconforming buildings remaining at the termination of the lease, or the lease's expiration or earlier termination. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Martindale replied that the Vallely lease was executed in 1978. Commissioner Turner opined that several use permits have been processed through the City which the Vallelys have known about, and he asked if they, raised any objections to those applications. Mr. Martindale replied that the subject Use Permit No. 3122 as approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1985, imposed a condition to record a parcel map on the property that would create one building site. Mr. Martindale replied to Commissioner Turner that the Vallelys continue to approve the plans. Mr. Martindale stated that it is the contention of the Vallelys that the applicant is under default of the lease. Mr. Martindale advised Commissioner Turner that no objections were necessary to build a parking structure, and he opined that if the Planning Commission would impose a condition to resubdivide the property into a I I I single parcel that it will be necessary for the owners of interest in that property to reach some resolution. Commissioner Turner opined that if the Planning Commission does not impose a condition that the MINUTES INDEX COAAN\ISSIONERSI May 8, 1986 MINUTES Beach INDEX property be resubdivided into a single parcel that the Vallelys would not have a problem with that decision, that the Vallelys would still own the property free and clear of all encumbrances as far as the title is concerned. Mr. Martindale replied that the Vallelys will have improvements constructed on the property which on the expiration or termination of the lease, are nonconforming. Discussion followed between Commissioner Turner and Mr. Martindale regarding the expiration of the lease and whether or not the structure would be torn down, and the economic life theory which assumes that the building would be torn down. Mr. Martindale stated that the Vallelys have entered into a contract that all of the improvements existing at the time of expiration are the property of the landowner. I I I I I I I ( Commissioner Turner asked why the argument that at the end of the lease that the building would be torn down did not exist at the time the Vallelys signed the F C C O = �G 9 late date. Mr. Martindale replied that the argument ti L 9 m z m �„, z m C z A w a r o; O x 0 MjCity combine lease and fee parcels so long as the lease is W m o m � r of Z s z y z z r m Beach INDEX property be resubdivided into a single parcel that the Vallelys would not have a problem with that decision, that the Vallelys would still own the property free and clear of all encumbrances as far as the title is concerned. Mr. Martindale replied that the Vallelys will have improvements constructed on the property which on the expiration or termination of the lease, are nonconforming. Discussion followed between Commissioner Turner and Mr. Martindale regarding the expiration of the lease and whether or not the structure would be torn down, and the economic life theory which assumes that the building would be torn down. Mr. Martindale stated that the Vallelys have entered into a contract that all of the improvements existing at the time of expiration are the property of the landowner. I I I I I I I ( Commissioner Turner asked why the argument that at the end of the lease that the building would be torn down did not exist at the time the Vallelys signed the -10- lease, and why has the argument has come up at this late date. Mr. Martindale replied that the argument has come up by suggesting that it is appropriate to combine lease and fee parcels so long as the lease is for the duration of the economic life of the building. He said that this is a City concept and that he is suggesting that it is a meaningless concept, a tax concept that allows a write -off of the buildings over less than their real life. He opined that the buildings will remain, but they will have no right to continue parking on the lease parcels, so a nonconforming use situation will be created, a restaurant that has a useful life, but there will be no parking in a, very congested area of the City. Ms. Korade and Commissioner Turner pointed out that Condition No. 5 provides for an off -site parking agreement, and if the restaurant can find other parking, if the off -site parking agreement becomes void, the restaurant can stay in business. Ms. Korade pointed out that the restaurant must provide 188 parking spaces, and that if the lease terminates and the restaurant can provide parking in another area the restaurant can continue its operation. Ms. Korade referred to the recommended Condition No. 5 to Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) wherein the condition states "that the applicant shall obtain the approval of an off -site parking agreement from the City Council providing 188 parking spaces in a parking structure -10- MMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 7x C b x A y _ C v m a c m s m z C z w a x 0 0 Z 9 z A a r m 1 City of Newport Beach located on Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 3, Bayside Tract and a portion of Lot 22, Block A, Bayside Tract for the duration of the proposed uses on the building sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off - street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Department." Mr. Martindale opined that "duration of the proposed uses on the building sites" is part of the economic life theory that the applicant would have to come up with proof and the applicant will have the lease for parking for the 'economic life of the building. Ms. Korade stated that recommended Condition No. 5 is a standard condition that the City imposes requiring sufficient parking for the use of the building, the agreements have to be recorded, and have to be valid for the amount of time that the building is in use. Ms. Korade and Commissioner Turner advised that the owner does not have to tear down the building, that the property owner can do whatever he wants with the building as long as the use complies with City ordinances. Commissioner Turner concluded that the matter belongs in Court and not before the Planning Commission. Mr. Martindale commented that the Planning Commission is ignoring quite legitimate concerns of the City. Mr. Hewicker suggested that Mr. Martindale has requested that the project be redesigned so that the four lots that are in the middle of the parking structure have independent vehicular ingress and egress and utilities to them as opposed to the design of the building which has been approved. Mr. Hewicker asked why the argument has come up at this late date after the project has come before the City under different applications over a period of the past few years. Mr. Martindale replied that a condition was previously imposed that the property be resubdivided. Mr. Hewicker replied that in order to combine all of the parcels into a single building site, there would be a requirement that the Mark Howard fee interest, the Vallely fee interest, and the Don Franklin fee interest all convey their interests into some kind of common entity where all of the ownerships be combined into one parcel. Mr. Hewicker asked why there has been a reluctance to proceed with a parcel map. Ms. Korade pointed out that the matter before the Planning Commission is whether to Waive the Parcel Map Requirement, and the use of the property and the possible landlord /tenant dispute is a matter for the Courts. -11- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERSI May 8, 1986 MINUTES of Newport Beach Mr. John Vallely, representing the Vallely family, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Vallely stated that the Vallely family has viewed the plans and they had a meeting with the developers in 1984 prior to the applicant making the application. He said that they like the plans, and from the very first meeting they have said that the applicant must come up with an agreement that addresses the crossing of property lines. Mr. Jerry King reappeared before the Planning Commission. He commented that the length of the lease and the terms of the lease are the guidelines for the economic life, not the life of the buildings, and that is what has been set as a parameter for suggesting a Waiver of the Parcel Map. Mr. King commented that combining all of the lots into one parcel map erases the property lines and that neither the Vallelys or the owners of record had a desire to create a building site. He further stated that the Title Company expressed that there could be difficulty sorting out the ownerships when the leases were terminated or passed on to heirs. Mr. King stated that a proposal was presented to the Vallelys on December 17, 1985, wherein it was agreed that in the event of default that the interest that the applicant had in improvements would be deeded to the Vallelys for the consideration of $1.00 and the income that would be derived from the project would go to the Vallelys directly for the remaining years of that lease. In addition, for the fee ownership that the applicant had, it was agreed to lease the fee ownership to the Vallelys so that the parcel can remain whole for the consideration of $1.00. Any lease of the remaining term was to go directly to the remaining owners. The agreement further stated that the improvements upon the termination of the lease in October 31, 2043, by the desire of the parties remaining, would be removed at the expense of Balboa Landing, and that the interested parties would renegotiate the lease. He said that the applicant has tried to address all of the concerns that all of the fee owners have had, and that all of the documents have been signed with the exception of the Vallelys. Chairman Person pointed out that the recommended Finding No. 2 of the Waiver of Parcel Map is incorrect inasmuch as the condition states that there is a permanent loan. Mr. King replied that the applicant -12- INDEX 7 F C O O v r 9 m a z c m m z D 0 z r O C= C N or 0 O C a z m z a z M z M of Newport Beach Mr. John Vallely, representing the Vallely family, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Vallely stated that the Vallely family has viewed the plans and they had a meeting with the developers in 1984 prior to the applicant making the application. He said that they like the plans, and from the very first meeting they have said that the applicant must come up with an agreement that addresses the crossing of property lines. Mr. Jerry King reappeared before the Planning Commission. He commented that the length of the lease and the terms of the lease are the guidelines for the economic life, not the life of the buildings, and that is what has been set as a parameter for suggesting a Waiver of the Parcel Map. Mr. King commented that combining all of the lots into one parcel map erases the property lines and that neither the Vallelys or the owners of record had a desire to create a building site. He further stated that the Title Company expressed that there could be difficulty sorting out the ownerships when the leases were terminated or passed on to heirs. Mr. King stated that a proposal was presented to the Vallelys on December 17, 1985, wherein it was agreed that in the event of default that the interest that the applicant had in improvements would be deeded to the Vallelys for the consideration of $1.00 and the income that would be derived from the project would go to the Vallelys directly for the remaining years of that lease. In addition, for the fee ownership that the applicant had, it was agreed to lease the fee ownership to the Vallelys so that the parcel can remain whole for the consideration of $1.00. Any lease of the remaining term was to go directly to the remaining owners. The agreement further stated that the improvements upon the termination of the lease in October 31, 2043, by the desire of the parties remaining, would be removed at the expense of Balboa Landing, and that the interested parties would renegotiate the lease. He said that the applicant has tried to address all of the concerns that all of the fee owners have had, and that all of the documents have been signed with the exception of the Vallelys. Chairman Person pointed out that the recommended Finding No. 2 of the Waiver of Parcel Map is incorrect inasmuch as the condition states that there is a permanent loan. Mr. King replied that the applicant -12- INDEX COAAANSSIONERS1 May 8, 1986 can provide evidence of a construction loan from eighteen months to five years, and that the permanent loan will commence when the project is completed. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the necessity of making a finding that the applicant has secured a thirty year loan, Ms. Korade replied that under the existing Ordinance it is not a necessary finding; however, the Planning Department requested the finding to provide additional security and additional support, that the parcel will be held for the economic duration of the building. Mr. Hewicker stated that there previously had been a discussion between staff and Mr. King regarding the time remaining on the lease agreement and the length of the loan, and that staff put that information in the form of the finding. 'Mr. Hewicker commented that during the public hearing that staff has been informed there are 57 years remaining on the lease, and not 40 years, and that the applicant has a construction loan for a period of between 18 months to five years. Mr. . King replied that he cannot explain why the years remaining on the lease was incorrect; however, he commented that he had informed staff that the applicant had a construction loan and that there would be a thirty year loan. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the length of other leasehold interests, Mr. King replied that Mr. Howard had informed him that the leasehold interests are concurrent with the remaining term of the leases with Mr. Franklin and Mr. Howard. Ms. Korade stated that recommended Condition No. 7 states that the applicant provide documentation to the City prior to any building permits being issued. Commissioner Turner reviewed the purpose of the proposed Finding No. 2 and Condition No. 7 as recommended by staff. Ms. Korade cited that the Planning Commission can and has in the past made findings based on representation of people and based on the difficulties with the subject application, the City is requesting additional proof of the documents. Mr. Mike Franklin, 3250 East Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the remaining property owners. He-stated that Mark Howard had a shorter lease originally, and that the other property owners stretched the lease to match the Vallely lease to 59 years for the parking structure. -13- MINUTES INDEX X z 9 9 = 1 9 p m i s m m z cz I z N o >aol T m z a= City v f Newport p Beach can provide evidence of a construction loan from eighteen months to five years, and that the permanent loan will commence when the project is completed. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the necessity of making a finding that the applicant has secured a thirty year loan, Ms. Korade replied that under the existing Ordinance it is not a necessary finding; however, the Planning Department requested the finding to provide additional security and additional support, that the parcel will be held for the economic duration of the building. Mr. Hewicker stated that there previously had been a discussion between staff and Mr. King regarding the time remaining on the lease agreement and the length of the loan, and that staff put that information in the form of the finding. 'Mr. Hewicker commented that during the public hearing that staff has been informed there are 57 years remaining on the lease, and not 40 years, and that the applicant has a construction loan for a period of between 18 months to five years. Mr. . King replied that he cannot explain why the years remaining on the lease was incorrect; however, he commented that he had informed staff that the applicant had a construction loan and that there would be a thirty year loan. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the length of other leasehold interests, Mr. King replied that Mr. Howard had informed him that the leasehold interests are concurrent with the remaining term of the leases with Mr. Franklin and Mr. Howard. Ms. Korade stated that recommended Condition No. 7 states that the applicant provide documentation to the City prior to any building permits being issued. Commissioner Turner reviewed the purpose of the proposed Finding No. 2 and Condition No. 7 as recommended by staff. Ms. Korade cited that the Planning Commission can and has in the past made findings based on representation of people and based on the difficulties with the subject application, the City is requesting additional proof of the documents. Mr. Mike Franklin, 3250 East Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the remaining property owners. He-stated that Mark Howard had a shorter lease originally, and that the other property owners stretched the lease to match the Vallely lease to 59 years for the parking structure. -13- MINUTES INDEX 'VAANSSIONERS May 8, 1986 x 0 C o � x _ v r v m C z c m> m z m X x z r 0 x m ° ° ° MZ M o m> r City of Newport Beach z m z z m He stated that there is a concern what may occur in 59 years, regarding how the property owners.would get the lots back, if the parking structure and the property would be torn down. He said that agreements have been signed stating that in the event of default on Mr. Howard and the other property owners, that the Vallelys would take possession and operate the project, and pay the rent on the rear portion of the property. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Turner stated that he hoped that the problems can be resolved because the proposed development is a good project, and he said that the City has gone forward based upon the validity of the leases and good faith in the people involved hoping that they would follow through and work together to see the project completed. Commissioner Turner referred to the previous comment made by Ms. Korade that the discussion remain with the Waiver of the Parcel Map issue. 1 ton x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including staff's recommendations of amended Waiver of Parcel Map Findings No. 1; No. 2, adding "...and that the applicant shall provide documentary proof that this finding is valid to the satisfaction of the City staff. ", because this would give staff the right to review the construction financing, permanent financing, and satisfy themselves that this item is in place; No. 3, and No. 4; add staff's recommendation of Condition No. 7-to the Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement so that staff will review the leases to the satisfaction prior to the time that any Building Permits are issued; add Condition No. 4 to Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended), add Findings No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and Condition No. 5 to Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended). Chairman Person asked the maker of the motion if his intent to amend recommended Finding No. 2 to the Waiver of the Parcel Map was that proof of a construction loan and permanent financing be made to the City prior to the construction? Commissioner Turner stated that the • purpose of the amended finding was to give the City some rather broad discretion because typically a construction loan might run twelve months, eighteen months, or may extend to two to three years, but it -14- MINUTES MMISSIONERSI May 8, 1986 would give the City the discretion to approve the construction loan and eliminate the requirement for looking at the permanent loan. The theory is that once the project is finished that it would be financed. Chairman Person asked to amend Finding No. 2 by striking the first sentence or make an amendment to that first sentence that says that the applicant has secured appropriate financing to finance the improvements that are planned for the site. Commissioner Turner approved the recommendation. Mr. Hewicker stated that the finding could be worded to say he has acquired construction financing and that he is in the process of securing permanent, financing. Commissioner Kurlander questioned the need for Finding No. 2 regarding the financing. He opined that recommended Condition No. 7 covers the documentation required in order to construct the project. Commissioner Turner opined that construction with an individual's own money could be construed as financing. .Mr. Hewicker commented that the intent of that finding • was to provide the wording that is required under the language of the Municipal Code that says you have to make a finding that the applicant has possession of the property, that it reflects upon the economic life of the improvements to be constructed on the site, and the interpretation of the staff of that wording (at this point Mr. Hewicker stated that he wrote the original language of the Ordinance twelve - fifteen years ago and that he was not aware . that any City had parcel map combining requirements at that time; however, other cities may have followed suit since that time) . He further explained that his intent was to show that if there was to be financing of the project. that the length of the loan would not extend beyond the length of the lease. Commissioner Turner commented that most lending institutions will protect themselves in that regard. Commissioner Goff suggested that the recommended amended Finding No. 2 would be important to his consideration of approval of the item. He said that he did not think it would be appropriate to impose a condition that they secure financing, but he thought the fact that they have secured financing is an important consideration. Commissioner Goff stated that the amendment to Finding No. 2 would cover that need. • 11111111 Chairman Person stated that he will support the motion, that the motion is appropriate under the circumstances and is based upon his belief that the approval of -15- MINUTES x �o ti o � v m 2 c m m 2 c z X m = C t A = 0 T 0 m City of Newport Beach would give the City the discretion to approve the construction loan and eliminate the requirement for looking at the permanent loan. The theory is that once the project is finished that it would be financed. Chairman Person asked to amend Finding No. 2 by striking the first sentence or make an amendment to that first sentence that says that the applicant has secured appropriate financing to finance the improvements that are planned for the site. Commissioner Turner approved the recommendation. Mr. Hewicker stated that the finding could be worded to say he has acquired construction financing and that he is in the process of securing permanent, financing. Commissioner Kurlander questioned the need for Finding No. 2 regarding the financing. He opined that recommended Condition No. 7 covers the documentation required in order to construct the project. Commissioner Turner opined that construction with an individual's own money could be construed as financing. .Mr. Hewicker commented that the intent of that finding • was to provide the wording that is required under the language of the Municipal Code that says you have to make a finding that the applicant has possession of the property, that it reflects upon the economic life of the improvements to be constructed on the site, and the interpretation of the staff of that wording (at this point Mr. Hewicker stated that he wrote the original language of the Ordinance twelve - fifteen years ago and that he was not aware . that any City had parcel map combining requirements at that time; however, other cities may have followed suit since that time) . He further explained that his intent was to show that if there was to be financing of the project. that the length of the loan would not extend beyond the length of the lease. Commissioner Turner commented that most lending institutions will protect themselves in that regard. Commissioner Goff suggested that the recommended amended Finding No. 2 would be important to his consideration of approval of the item. He said that he did not think it would be appropriate to impose a condition that they secure financing, but he thought the fact that they have secured financing is an important consideration. Commissioner Goff stated that the amendment to Finding No. 2 would cover that need. • 11111111 Chairman Person stated that he will support the motion, that the motion is appropriate under the circumstances and is based upon his belief that the approval of -15- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS] May 8, 1966 MINUTES Beach INDEX Amendment No. 633 to clarify the term "Building Site" has nothing to do with this matter and the Waiver of the Parcel Map could have been done under the previous Ordinance prior to the changes made by the City Council. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion. She said that the sole issue is whether or not Section 20.87.090(B) of the Zoning Code allows the Planning Commission to approve a Waiver of a Parcel Map under the existing facts, and evidence has been presented to allow the Planning Commission to make each and every finding as required by law, and under those circumstances any other set of facts or problems between the two parties are not pertinent to this public hearing. She further stated that these facts are consistent with the requirements of the Section as it existed prior to the approval of Amendment No. 633. Chairman Person commented that he has a high regard for • all of the parties involved and has found the issue difficult: He further commented that the Planning Commission has been brought into a dispute between adjoining landowners. All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and the Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Findings No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 to Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and amended Findings No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and Condition No. 7 to the Waiver of the Parcel Map Requirement. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) FINDING: 1. That the applicant has presented sufficient information to the Planning Commission to justify the waiver of the required parcel map in accor- dance with Section 20.87.090 B of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • I I I I 2. That the off -site parking area is located as to be useful in connection with the proposed Edgewater Place development. -16- X F C O = 9 L V m Z C T D m Z m A m S r S cz 9 m w O o; m s o M r 'ECity of 2 9 2 9 2 T T Beach INDEX Amendment No. 633 to clarify the term "Building Site" has nothing to do with this matter and the Waiver of the Parcel Map could have been done under the previous Ordinance prior to the changes made by the City Council. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion. She said that the sole issue is whether or not Section 20.87.090(B) of the Zoning Code allows the Planning Commission to approve a Waiver of a Parcel Map under the existing facts, and evidence has been presented to allow the Planning Commission to make each and every finding as required by law, and under those circumstances any other set of facts or problems between the two parties are not pertinent to this public hearing. She further stated that these facts are consistent with the requirements of the Section as it existed prior to the approval of Amendment No. 633. Chairman Person commented that he has a high regard for • all of the parties involved and has found the issue difficult: He further commented that the Planning Commission has been brought into a dispute between adjoining landowners. All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and the Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Findings No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 to Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and amended Findings No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and Condition No. 7 to the Waiver of the Parcel Map Requirement. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) FINDING: 1. That the applicant has presented sufficient information to the Planning Commission to justify the waiver of the required parcel map in accor- dance with Section 20.87.090 B of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • I I I I 2. That the off -site parking area is located as to be useful in connection with the proposed Edgewater Place development. -16- CO/"MISSIONERSI May 8, 1986 3. That parking on the off -site location will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 4. That the off -site parking location is in the same ownership (lease hold interest) as the building site and said ownership is of a duration adequate to serve all proposed uses on the building site or sites. CONDITIONS: 1. That all previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3122 shall be fulfilled as approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1985, except as noted below. 2. That Condition No. 2 of Use Permit No. 3122 0 requiring the fulfillment of all conditions of & a v = Resubdivision No. 797 is hereby deleted. v v m 3. That all conditions of the waiver of the parcel C z c m s > m = map for property located at 309 Palm Street shall C Z a N Z M> , 0 * O m City Y f `. ,..� Newport Beach a 3. That parking on the off -site location will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 4. That the off -site parking location is in the same ownership (lease hold interest) as the building site and said ownership is of a duration adequate to serve all proposed uses on the building site or sites. CONDITIONS: 1. That all previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3122 shall be fulfilled as approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1985, except as noted below. 4. That Condition No. 20 of Use Permit No. 3122 shall be amended to read as follows: Demolition and construction shall not be commenced until September 2, 1986, to avoid peak seasonal traffic, or shall be accomplished in a manner satisfactory to the Planning, Building and Public Works Departments during the period of June 1 or the day after Labor Day. In addition to the criteria specified by each of the above departments, any summertime construction or demolition on the subject property shall conform with the following: a. Earth moving operations: (1) Truck haul operations shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. . (2) No more than one truck waiting to be loaded and no truck storage on the public streets in the project vicinity. (3) No truck staging areas on the Peninsula (southerly of West Coast Highway). -17- MINUTES INDEX 2. That Condition No. 2 of Use Permit No. 3122 requiring the fulfillment of all conditions of Resubdivision No. 797 is hereby deleted. 3. That all conditions of the waiver of the parcel map for property located at 309 Palm Street shall be fulfilled. 4. That Condition No. 20 of Use Permit No. 3122 shall be amended to read as follows: Demolition and construction shall not be commenced until September 2, 1986, to avoid peak seasonal traffic, or shall be accomplished in a manner satisfactory to the Planning, Building and Public Works Departments during the period of June 1 or the day after Labor Day. In addition to the criteria specified by each of the above departments, any summertime construction or demolition on the subject property shall conform with the following: a. Earth moving operations: (1) Truck haul operations shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. . (2) No more than one truck waiting to be loaded and no truck storage on the public streets in the project vicinity. (3) No truck staging areas on the Peninsula (southerly of West Coast Highway). -17- MINUTES INDEX MMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 Cx C o 0 s p y _ y m 2 c m a m 2 a= W a i O O M = _ , m I City of Newport Beach (4) No more than 28 truckloads per day, or an average of four truckloads per hour. (5) One lane of traffic to be maintained on East Bay Avenue and Adams Street at all times. (6) Two lanes of traffic to be maintained on Palm Street at all times. b. Concrete placing operations: (1) Submit to the .Public Works Department for approval a plan for traffic and site management for the concrete placing operation in advance of beginning the grading. Any modifications to the approved plan shall be submitted and approved three weeks in advance of the placement date. If work is contemplated • to begin before 7:00 a.m. or proceed beyond 6:30 p.m, or to be done on Saturday, Sunday or holidays, the City Council must approve the request. (2) No street closures will be allowed. C. Delivery of construction materials to the site: (1) Deliveries can only be made between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. (2) Two lanes of traffic must be maintained on Palm Street at all times. (3) One lane of traffic must be maintained on East Bay Avenue and Adams Street at all times. (4) No storage of any materials, sand, lumber, etc., shall be permitted in the public right of way. . I I I I I I I I d. General provisions: (1) A minimum of 12 feet of clear paved or surfaced area shall be maintained at all elm MINUTES "AAISSIONERSI May 8, 1986 times along Edgewater Place. No vehicles shall be parked or driven on Edgewater Place. (2) If, in the opinion of the Building, Public Works or Police Departments, the construction project is causing substantial traffic congestion and /or a hazard to people in the vicinity of the construction site and /or the Balboa Peninsula area, the City reserves the right to require that construction operations cease until the problems have been corrected. If the same problem recurs, the City may require that construction operations cease until September 15. (3) That all contractors and subcontractors be made aware of these conditions and • that there be a developers' representative at the site at all times during the construction operation with the authority to shut down operations at the request of appropriate city representatives. 5. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of an off -site parking agreement from the City Council providing 188 parking spaces in a parking struc- ture located on Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 3, Bayside Tract and a portion of Lot 22, Block A, Bayside Tract for the duration of the proposed uses on the building sites. Should a change in use or additional use be .proposed, the off - street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Department. Waiver of Parcel Map FINDINGS: • 1. That the building site is under multiple owner- ships and lease hold interests which prevented the applicant from combining the properties into a single building site. -19- MINUTES INDEX xx C o � k y 9 S - C 9 r y m z c m m z C Z m 0 r o 0 M a T m City of Newport Beach Z a times along Edgewater Place. No vehicles shall be parked or driven on Edgewater Place. (2) If, in the opinion of the Building, Public Works or Police Departments, the construction project is causing substantial traffic congestion and /or a hazard to people in the vicinity of the construction site and /or the Balboa Peninsula area, the City reserves the right to require that construction operations cease until the problems have been corrected. If the same problem recurs, the City may require that construction operations cease until September 15. (3) That all contractors and subcontractors be made aware of these conditions and • that there be a developers' representative at the site at all times during the construction operation with the authority to shut down operations at the request of appropriate city representatives. 5. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of an off -site parking agreement from the City Council providing 188 parking spaces in a parking struc- ture located on Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 3, Bayside Tract and a portion of Lot 22, Block A, Bayside Tract for the duration of the proposed uses on the building sites. Should a change in use or additional use be .proposed, the off - street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Department. Waiver of Parcel Map FINDINGS: • 1. That the building site is under multiple owner- ships and lease hold interests which prevented the applicant from combining the properties into a single building site. -19- MINUTES INDEX WV\ISSIONERS May 8, 1986 X c o E 9 9 m S r v 2 C T y m Z E z 0 p; 0 0 9= T m A= j City of Newport Beach 2. That the applicant has secured appropriate financing to finance the improvements planned for the site. That the estate in real property is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots which constitute the building site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvement to be placed on the site, and that the applicant shall provide documentary proof that this finding is valid to the satisfaction of the City staff. 3. That all requirements of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and Policies of the City of Newport Beach which would otherwise be accomplished by the com- bining of .parcels can be met through the imposi- tion of the Conditions noted below. I ( ( ( I 4. That this request complies with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the changes as adopted by the City Council on April 28, 1986. CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney in conjunction with the waiver of the parcel map. 2. Should the subject property ever be held under a single ownership, this waiver shall become null and void and the property owner shall obtain the approval of a resubdivision. 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 797 shall be fulfilled as approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1985, except as noted below. 4. That Condition No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 797 requiring recordation of a parcel map be waived. 5. That Condition No. 3 of Resubdivision No. 797 be revised as follows: "That a use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee • satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a grading permit or building permit prior to completion of the public improvements." -20- MINUTES "/V\ISSIONERS May 8, 1986 xx C C v r v m Z c m y m Z M 9 z a a T m fl City of Newport Beach C Z N a r 0 0 6. That Condition No. 32 of Resubdivision No. 797 requiring the recordation of a parcel map within 3 years of the date of approval.be deleted. 7. That prior to issuance of a Building Permit for construction of the improvements authorized by Use Permit No. 3122, the applicant shall prove to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that he has possessory, interest in the parcels upon which improvements are to be constructed. r Variance No. 1129 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling and two car garage on property located in the R -1 District which exceed the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District and which pro- jects above the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. The proposal also includes 'a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 9 feet 6 inches± into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: The northwesterly parcel of Parcel Map No. 4667 -210 ( Resubdivision No. 85), located at 3713 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard between Poinsettia Avenue and Poppy Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Jay Brian Evarts, Newport Beach OWNER: Ralph W. and Doris B. Waniek, Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jay Brian Evarts, applicant, 2016 Lafayette Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Evarts stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions as contained in Exhibit "A ". Donald Webb, City Engineer, referred to Condition No. 7 regarding the sewer service for the new residence, and he stated that the condition was brought to his attention by the Utilities Director. He added that the -21- MINUTES WV\ISSIONERS May 8, 1986 A 7 'o x - C v p v m Z c m s m = a= N O X O O 9= p= T 1 City of Newport Beach m proposed development would interfere with the existing private sewer line that goes across the subject property from the lot easterly of the site. He said that there have been difficulties maintaining sewer service to the private line over the years which would require the new dwelling have a sewer service that drains to the existing City sewer on Ocean Boulevard, which would require a pump station. He suggested that Condition No. 7 be revised so that both houses would be drained to the sewer line on Ocean Boulevard rather than try to have a private sewer line reconstructed to the house to the east. Mr. Webb recommended Condition No. 7 be amended as follows: "That the sewer service for the new residence located at 3713 Ocean Boulevard and the adjoining property located at 3719 Ocean Boulevard be connected to the City's sewer main located on the northerly side of Ocean. Boulevard. This connection will require the installation of a private sewer pumping system by the owner or owners. If a single system is used, the two owners should execute an I I I I I agreement providing for its operation and maintenance ". Mr. Evarts stated his approval of amended Condition No. 7. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter received by the Planning Department from Mr. Tom Peckenpaugh dated April 30, 1986, regarding the height of the landscaping on private property and the public right -of -way. Mr. Hewicker advised that the landscaping on the public right -of -way would need to be approved by the City Council; however, he said that if it is the intent of the Planning Commission to limit the vegetation on private property by no higher than the top of the curb then there would have to be a condition added to the Variance. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked where the sewer line goes from the vacant lot to the house to the east. Mr. Webb described the connection of the the sewer lines and how the sewer lines could be maintained. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1129 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 7. Commissioner Turner commented that he was tempted to add a condition regarding the height of vegetation, however he asked staff if that is a condition that the Planning Commission has been -22- MINUTES MMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 'x 'o � a y - v m Z c M Z c z y , 3 0 0 9 0 I City of Newport Beach z _ requesting. Mr. Hewicker replied that the Ordinance limits the height of a structure to the top of curb and chimneys are allowed to extend further in accordance with the Uniform Building Code; however, he stated he does hot recall specifically where the Planning Commission has limited vegetation. Commissioner Turner stated that he does not believe that the City is in a position to enforce the height of vegetation and that he would not include that condition. All Ayes I I I I I I I Motion voted on to approve Variance No. 1129 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 7. 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 subject property maintains a unique topography which is significantly different than other lots on the upland side of Ocean Boulevard. 2. That the granting of a variance to exceed the permitted building height is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is of comparable height to other build- ings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 3. That the garage portion of the subject project which projects above the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard, represents the minimum acceptable design for a garage which maintains required driveway access at a maximum slope of 20 percent. 4. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building at the proposed height will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to I I I I I property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -23- MINUTES MMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 X c o r t 2 c m y m z C Z 0 a r 0 0 9= a= T m I City of Newport Beach 5. That the proposed front yard encroachment 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 detri- mental 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. CONDITIONS:. 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the improvements. 5. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 6. That a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk be construc- ted adjacent to the existing curb along the Ocean Boulevard frontages and that the back of the proposed drive apron be a minimum of 8 inches above street flow line grade unless otherwise Approve by the Public Works Department. 7. That the sewer service for the new residence located at 3713 Ocean Boulevard and the adjoining property located at 3719 Ocean Boulevard be connected to the City's sewer main located on the northerly side of Ocean Boulevard. This connection will require the installation of a private sewer pumping system by the owner or owners. If a single system is used the two owners should execute an agreement providing for its operation and maintenance. -24- MINUTES MMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 xx 'o v A _ v m C Z c m � m Z C Z 0 p O O Z A T m j City of Newport Beach x 8. That all construction and landscaping within the public right of way shall be subject to the approval of the City Council and shall be conduct- ed in accordance with an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 10. 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. 11. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from.the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase V I I I erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 12. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 13. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soils 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. 14. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 15. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -25- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 MINUTES �x C o �{ 1 L S V r v Z c m " z Z c z W a; 0 0 D = M = r m City of Newport Beach R L CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3198 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to establish a reading clinic which includes UP3198 individual classroom instruction on property located in the General Commercial Site No. 3 (Plaza Newport Approved Shopping Village) of the Newport Place Planned Commu- nity. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 97 -18, 19 (Resubdivision No. 541), located at 1000 Bristol Street North, on the northeasterly side of Bristol Street North, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: American Learning Corporation, Huntington Beach OWNER: L. S. W., Ltd., Laguna Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred to Condition No. 4 requiring a one hour occupancy separation be maintained between the reading clinic and adjacent commercial uses. The Uniform Building Code would normally require five /eighths inch drywall to be located on both sides of the common walls, but because the building is sprinklered, the drywalls on the adjoining retail sides of the walls would not be necessary. He stated that the Uniform Building Code requires that- the drywall be located inside the reading clinic on the common walls adjacent to other commercial space; therefore staff is recommending that Condition No. 4 be amended as follows: "That the reading clinic sides of the common walls shall be upgraded as required by the Uniform Building Code for one hour construction ". Mr. Laycock stated that the applicant is aware of the revised condition. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Angelina Boaz, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Boaz stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions of Use Permit No. 3198, including amended Condition No. 4. The public hearing was closed at this time. -26- COMMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 MINUTES 5. That the Planning Commission may add or modify � c z N p M z r o o T m City of Newport Beach a a recommend to the City Council the revocation of S this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, ROIL CALL causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, INDEX Motion safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare • x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3198, subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport including revised Condition No. 4. Motion voted on, Beach Municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed reading clinic 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 approval of Use Permit No. 3198 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That a maximum of nine students shall be permitted within the facility at any one time. 3. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. daily. 4. That the reading clinic sides of the common walls shall be upgraded as required by the Uniform Building Code for one hour construction. -27- 5. 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. 6. 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. -27- COMMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 MINUTES c o 9 V = C v m z c m ," z M C Z N p K. O O 9 = A = T m City of Newport Beach S ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3199 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 UP3199 Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis court lighting on property located in the custom lot residential area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned Approved Community. Said lighting will be installed on eight poles with a fixture height of 22 feet. LOCATION: Lot 2, Tract No. 11450, located at 5 Barrenger Court, on the southerly side of Barrenger Court, easterly of Belcourt Drive North, in the custom lot residential area of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANTS: Gary F. and Joyce Almas, Downey OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Gary Almas, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Almas stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I I I Ix I I I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3199, subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. . 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3199 will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, -28- May 8, 1986 MINUTES 1C O _ I F 9 a 9 m Z c m y m z 0 M M Z A = T ° City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and im- provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plans and elevation. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the tennis court lighting shall,be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. x x x Use Permit No. 3201 (Public Hearing) Request to establish an auto leasing facility on property located in the C -1 -H District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow a portion of the required parking spaces to be tandem spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 59 -4, (Resubdivision No. 414), located at 3520 Irvine Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue, between Bristol Street and Orchard Drive, adjacent to the Unincorporated Area of Santa Ana Heights. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Florentino C. Apeles, Newport Beach • OWNER: William J. Cagney, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Tom Cronin, Don Kott Ford, 635 West -29- Item No.5 UP3201 Approved MMISSIONERS May 8, 1956 c o � x m C z c m a m z c z N o a O O m= m T m 1 City of Newport Beach z Baker, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission as the occupant and representing the applicant. Mr. Cronin stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit Commissioner Kurlander pointed out to Mr. Cronin that no washing of automobiles will be permitted on site, and that there have been previous problems with this type of operation when there are not any wash facilities on the site. Mr. Cronin stated that the applicant owns a car wash at Baker Street and Fairview Avenue in Costa Mesa and that there has been another arrangement with a car wash in Costa Mesa on Bristol Avenue near Baker Street. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3201, subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. - FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the establishment, maintenance of operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use 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 modifi- cation for tandem parking spaces is consistent • with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. -30- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 MINUTES c o x C v °y m a c m y m z z T Z 9 City of Newport Beach C 2 p[ O o S ROLL CALL INDEX 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3201 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substan- tial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties. 3. That all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved areas and drives. 5. That the approval of this applicant is for automo- bile leasing only. No servicing or repairs of automobiles shall be permitted on -site, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 6. No washing of automobiles shall be permitted on -site, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission.. At that time, the Planning Commission may require that such items as grease traps and a wash area enclo- sure be installed. 7. That six (6) parking spaces shall be maintained on -site for customer and employee parking and that said spaces shall not be utilized for storage of leased vehicles. 8. That the parking lot area shall be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. • 9. That the existing easement providing access to Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 59 -4 shall be maintained. -31- COMMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 MINUTES Fi�x Co v � v m _ m y m z a z A= r m City of Newport Beach z W O Z o o 10. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department 11. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation system be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 12. 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. AND B. Resubdivision No. 826 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing properties into two parcels of land, so as to establish two legal building sites in conjunction with the remodel and alterations of the existing Portofino Hotel. I j I I I I I LOCATION: lo act, cated ata 9 2306 West Ocean Front, • 11111111 northerly side of West Ocean Front, between 23rd Street and 24th Street, adjacent to the Newport Pier parking lot. -32- 13. 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. 3195 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 UP3195 Request to permit the expansion of an existing hotel located in the C -1 District. Said proposal includes a R826 request to convert a portion of the existing ground Continued floor of the building into a new hotel lobby and to reception area and to establish the facility as a bed 5 -22 -86 and breakfast hotel which will include the service of continental breakfast to hotel guests only. AND B. Resubdivision No. 826 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing properties into two parcels of land, so as to establish two legal building sites in conjunction with the remodel and alterations of the existing Portofino Hotel. I j I I I I I LOCATION: lo act, cated ata 9 2306 West Ocean Front, • 11111111 northerly side of West Ocean Front, between 23rd Street and 24th Street, adjacent to the Newport Pier parking lot. -32- COMMISSIONERS May 8, 1986 MINUTES C o x - v a y m C z c m s m = C z m a; o 0 f= 9 Z Z= r m j City of Newport Beach A D D I T I 0 N A L B U S I N E S S: Additional ROLL CALLTTT= Business JINDEX ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Piero Serra; Newport Beach OWNER Same as applicant Motion x : Motion was made to continue this item to the May 22, All Ayes 1986, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. I 1 u P CITY OF NEWPORT B R SECRETARY EACHPLANN PLANNING COMMISSION -33- r i r A D D I T I 0 N A L B U S I N E S S: Additional Business Planning Director Hewicker and the Planning Commission reviewed the monitoring' procedures for projects with required marine- oriented use suggested by staff. Marine- Chairman Person pointed out that there are property Oriented owners who have had difficulty leasing the forty Use percent marine - oriented use requirement in accordance with the Local Coastal Program, and that there may not • be that many incentive uses around Newport Harbor. Chairman Person discussed the possibility of holding a 5 -22 -86 portion of the public hearings for the Planning PC Agenda Commission meeting of May 22, 1986, at 3:30 p.m. because of the large number of items. After discussion, it was determined that the Planning Commission would attempt to review all of the agenda items at the regular evening meeting. Motion x Commissioner Winburn was excused from the May 22, 1986, Winburn All Ayes Planning Commission meeting. Excused A D J 0 U R N M E N T: 9:05 p.m. Adjournmen I 1 u P CITY OF NEWPORT B R SECRETARY EACHPLANN PLANNING COMMISSION -33-