Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1990COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES o PLACE: City Council Cbambers °� p gbN TIME: 7:30 P.M. ��° ''� �'� DATE: May 10, 1990 Aft CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R&WCALL INDEX Present All Commissioners were present. i i Y ICTO OFFICERS PRESENT• E&OFF 1 11 Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager W. William Ward, Senior Planner Sandra L Genis, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of April 19. 1990: Minutes of 4 -19 -90 Ayes Abstain * * * * * Motion was made and voted on to approve the April 19, 1990, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. s s s Public Comments: Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comments non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 4, 1990, in front of City Hall. • COMMISSIONERS A ,p O� � Am CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request for William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff has continuance recommended that Item No. 6, Owen Minney, applicant, General Plan Amendment 89 -2(C), Use Permit No. 3380, and Site Plan Review No. 59, with respect to a commercial /residential mixed use project located at 447 North Newport Boulevard, be continued to the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. He further requested that Item No. 9, Planning Commission Review No. 12, Martha and Jim Beauchamp, applicants, property located at 2719 Shell Street, be continued to the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, so as to allow further review of the existing chimney heights. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 6 and No. All Ayes 9 to the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Exception Permit No. 38 (Discussion) Item No.l Request to permit the installation of a flashing time and EP 3E temperature display on two faces of a three faced sign on an existing freestanding sign tower on property located in the Approved C -O -H District. LOCATION: Lot 17, Tract No. 4824, located at 1100 Irvine Avenue, on the northeasterly comer of Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive, in the Westcliff Shopping Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: Superior Electrical Advertising, Long Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, indicated that the Planning Commission has the option to amend the Sign Code so as to allow a flashing time and temperature sign without discretionary approval of the Planning Commission in the future. Commissioner Pers6n, Commissioner Di Sano, and Commissioner Edwards supported the idea that the Planning Commission continue to review requests to install flashing time and -2- COMMISSIONERS Amk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R CALL INDEX temperature signs. Mr. Jeffrey Stern, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Mr. Stem described the materials used to manufacture the sign. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Exception Permit No. Ayes 38 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", based on No * the particular location and the type of sign. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed time and temperature display is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the addition of time and temperature displays to the existing sign will not have any significant environmental impact. • 3. That addition of time and temperature displays to the existing sign will not affect the character and design of the existing structures on the subject property. 4. That the proposed sign is in a unique location in the corner of the shopping center and will not be detrimental to the adjoining commercial and residential properties in the area. 5. That approval of this request will not set a precedent for other flashing, time /temperature devices in the area. 6. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. 7. That the addition of time and temperature displays to the existing sign is consistent with the legislative intent of the Title 20 of the Municipal Code. -3- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations. 2. That the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits issued by the Building Department for the proposed displays. 3. That the maximum area of the time and temperature display shall not exceed 7 square feet each and shall be limited to only two sides of the existing pylon structure. 4. That no advertising or information other than time and temperature display shall be permitted on the moving or flashing signs. sss Resubdivision No. 925 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land Resub.925 for a two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. I Approved LOCATION: Lot 22, Block 541, Corona del Mar, located at 520 Narcissus Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Third Avenue and Narcissus Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Hyter Properties, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Duca- McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar Don Webb, City Engineer, requested that Condition No. 5 be deleted stating "That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. ", and Condition No. 7 be amended to state "That sidewalk be constructed along the Third Avenue frontage, and that the curb return at the corner of Narcissus Avenue and Third Avenue be reconstructed on a 20 foot radius with a curb access ramp included." -4- COMMISSIONERS AIM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES ROWFCALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Terry Nemnich, architect and representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to questions posed by Mr. Nemnich regarding Condition No. 7, Mr. Webb explained that a 25 foot radius at street intersections is required on new subdivisions, and in Corona del Mar, staff is attempting to increase the radius from 15 feet to 20 feet inasmuch as it improves the ability for automobiles to maneuver around a corner. Mr. Webb further explained that not much more construction would be required to increase the radius to 20 feet beyond the installation of an access ramp. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with regard to the deletion of Condition No. 5 and the modification of Condition No. 7, Mr. Webb explained that after reviewing the subject plans-, it was determined that the proposed project provides three parldng spaces off of the alley and a fourth parldng space is proposed from a driveway on Third Avenue. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. All Ayes 925 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", as amended. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems . from a planning standpoint. -5- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy, and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. • 5. Deleted. 6. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That a sidewalk shall be constructed along the Third Avenue frontage; and that the curb return at the corner of Narcissus Avenue and Third Avenue be reconstructed on a 20 foot radius with a curb access ramp included. 8. That a 10 foot -wide radius corner cutoff at the comer of Third Avenue and Narcissus Avenue be dedicated to the public. 9. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 10. That the intersection of Third Avenue and the alley be designed to provide adequate sight distance. The sight plane line shall be measured from 5 feet behind street right -of -way at the alley setback line and projected 15 feet 0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11. May 10, 1990 MINUTES along the property line on Third Avenue. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 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. INDEX Resubdivision No. 926 (Public Hearing) stem No.3 Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into three Resub.926 parcels for commercial purposes on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial' area of the Mariner's Mile Approved Specific Plan. The proposal also includes a request to allow one of the proposed parcels to be less than the minimum required site area of 10,000 square feet. An exception to the Subdivision Code is also requested inasmuch as two of the parcels do not abut a street. LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at 2500 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue, in the Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Jack Jakosky, Newport Beach OWNERS: John J. Jakosky III and Jakosky Trust B., Newport Beach ENGINEER: AJ. Koltavary/Civil Engineers, Newport Beach Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to the conditions regarding recommendations for dedication, and he explained that the resubdivision creates two parcels that do not have access to a • public street. He explained that when several parcels of land were purchased by the City so as to develop the Mariner's Mile Municipal Parking Lot and to provide access into said parking -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R&WCALL INDEX lot, the area was considered a public access to the parking lot and not as a public street. Mr. Webb stated that the. access would not be adequate for a separate building site. He suggested that Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 be limited to parking only until they are combined with parcels that would have access on West Coast Highway. He suggested that the subject parcels could be developed after they have been combined with properties having access to West Coast Highway. He said that staff is requiring additional dedication along the existing drive access which is only 20 feet wide whereas the normal public access is a minimum of 26 feet wide. He said that physical widening is not currently being required inasmuch as there is not a change of use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with respect to the future use of Avon Street from the subject parcels, Mr. Webb explained that the drive access would be allowed to Parcels No. 1 and No. 3. He explained that when the City purchased 15 feet of rigbt -of -way from the property owners, the Jakosky Trust, to provide access into the Mariner's Mile Municipal Parking Lot, it was agreed to allow two driveways into said easement, and with the additional dedication, the City would be willing to allow two more driveways into the easement. Commissioner Glover stated that the staff report indicates that Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 could only be developed with buildings if they are connected to lots with access to West Coast Highway, and she asked if the parcels could be independently developed. Mr. Webb explained that the conditions on the resubdivision would only allow parking on Parcels No. 1 and No. 3. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the 26 foot wide access drive, Mr. Webb replied that the City will not consider the roadway as a public road to provide access to a developed property inasmuch as the City is assuming that Parcels No. 1 and No..3 will have to be combined with parcels that have access to West Coast Highway as a public street. He said that the access drive is similar to an alley as opposed to a public street. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jack Jakosky, applicant and owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jakosky stated that traffic circulation would be enhanced, and it would relieve some of the traffic exiting to West Coast Highway if access were allowed from Parcels No. 1 and No. 3. He opposed Conditions No. 4 through No. 10, and No. 14 in Exhibit "A" on the basis that the applicants are not requesting building permits or intensification -8- 1990 , COMMISSIONERS May 10MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX of density. He explained that the applicants are requesting to gain access to the access drive for the adjacent property owners. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy with respect to Condition No. 10 in Exhibit "A' regarding County Sanitation District fees prior to issuance of any building permits, Mr. Jakosky explained that no construction is currently being considered. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Jakosky replied that Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 will be transferred to adjacent parcel owners. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Jakosky discussed future development of the parcels, and Mr. Jakosky suggested that County Sanitation District fees could be a condition required on future development prior to issuance of any building permits. Mr. Jakosky addressed Condition No. 4 in Exhibit "A", requiring that the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be reviewed by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic • Engineer wherein he indicated that it was difficult to determine what conditions would be attached to a parcel map when it is open to review. Mr. Webb replied that the creation of Parcel No. 2 will require parking to be modified because a portion of the area that was originally used for parking is being moved, and staff wants to review the ultimate parking plan before it is installed and utilized. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that Condition No. 4 is a standard condition that is included on every project that has a parking facility. Commissioner Merrill referred to a statement previously made by Mr. Jakosky regarding building projects on Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 wherein he addressed Condition No. 12 in Exhibit "A' stating that Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 shall be used for parking purposes g»iX unless combined with parcels having access to a public street. Commissioner Merrill concluded that future development is feasible on said parcels. Mr. Webb stated that a building permit could be applied for on Parcel No. 2 if the applicants had a desire to change the building within the current uses without obtaining a new use permit. He said that if a connection to the Sanitation District facility exists, then the Sanitation Fee would • not be required. 0 COMMISSIONERS 0 May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH In reference to Condition No. 5 in Exhibit "A", requesting that the intersection of West Coast Highway and the private driveway be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour, Mr. Webb explained that said condition refers to Parcel No. 2 and would require that no signs or obstructions be installed in the sight line area. He said that no existing buildings would be required to be modified to meet the condition. In further reference to the condition, he said that slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions are considered so as not to block sight distance. In reference to Condition No. 7 in Exhibit "A ", requesting the existing drive be reconstructed along the West Coast Highway frontage with the City standard flared drive apron, Mr. Webb said that a two -way driveway does not currently exist, and with the current drive approach, automobiles are required to come to a stop so as to turn onto the driveway. Mr. Webb explained staff will work with the applicant on the basis that a flare may not be feasible on the westerly side of the driveway where a power pole exists. In reference to Condition No. 8 in Exhibit "A ", regarding a hydrology and hydraulic study, Mr. Webb explained that it is primarily subdividing two parcels into three parcels, and since two of the parcels are land locked and do not have access to public way and drainage course, a study is required regarding the amount of water and how the water will flow from Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 to West Coast Highway, across adjacent properties without causing problems on said properties. He said that water can now flow out directly onto West Coast Highway because the entire property is under one ownership. In reference to Condition No. 9 in Exhibit "A" regarding the 12 foot dedication on West Coast Highway, Mr. Webb explained that on the basis that West Coast Highway is on the Circulation Element of the General Plan and is designated as a major arterial highway with a required right -of -way width of 112 feet. The condition is included on any subdivision or parcel map on the northerly side of West Coast Highway as a 12 foot dedication. In reference to Condition No. 14 in Exhibit "A' requiring that the overhead utilities be undergrounded across the West Coast Highway frontage of Parcel No. 2, Mr. Webb indicated that subdivisions require that overhead utilities be undergrounded. -10- INDEX COMMISSIONERS �0� � N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R CALL J INDEX He said that the Edison Company voluntarily converted overhead utilities to underground. He said that on the basis that the telephone company has not changed the utility poles to underground, the City is requiring applicants to make the necessary conversions. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Webb estimated the cost to underground the utility poles to be approximately $10,000 to $15,000. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that the applicant could contract directly with Pacific Telephone to make the conversions, or the applicant may hire a contractor so as to install an underground conduit. Mr. Jakosky stated that the underground utilities would require the applicant to erect a guy wire in the center of the driveway, and it would be necessary to erect a pole on the easterly property line adjacent to the Waterfront Homes property. He addressed the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan and he agreed to develop Parcel No. 2 in accordance with the regulations. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding a proposed fund wherein contributions could be made to • underground the utilities along West Coast Highway, Mr. Webb discussed the piecemeal underground utility program on the south side of West Coast Highway, and he said that if the program is not done on an individual basis, it would necessitate an Assessment District. Mr. Webb stated that when the State assists in the funding of underground utilities when the Edison Company and Pacific Bell are involved in the process. Mr. Webb further indicated that it is possibile to assess the property owners until adequate funds are available to underground utilities; however, it could take many years to accomplish the complete project. Mr. Jakosky stated that the recommendation would not be practical. In reference to the dedications, Mr. Jakosky opposed the requested 12 feet on West Coast Highway and the 7 foot strip of land across the northerly side of the property. He stated his concerns regarding the future potential need of the 26 foot wide access drive, the existing traffic, the minimal utilization of the. metered Municipal parking lot, 26 foot dedication would eliminate 16 parking spaces, and pedestrian activity does not support a 5 foot wide sidewalk. Mr. Webb indicated the widening would not require the loss of public parking. • -11- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX In reference to the flared driveway, Mr. Jakosky addressed the 50 foot wide Parcel No. 2, the building frontage of 34 feet, the existing driveway with a width of approximately 17 feet, and he determined that the flared driveway that would encompass approximately 80 percent of the front of the property could not be utilized because of the footprint of the building. Mr. Webb explained that the City would require the applicant to widen the driveway approximately 14 feet on the easterly side, and because of the utility pole on the westerly side it would be prohibitive to widen the driveway. Mr. Webb further explained that a flared driveway provides for safer conditions as an automobile is entering the driveway from West Coast Highway. Mr. Jakosky and Mr. Webb discussed the feasibility of the requested driveway which would provide additional space for an automobile to maneuver regardless of the footprint of the building, and the metered parking space in front of the building. Mr. Gil Foerster, owner of Waterfront Homes, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the application inasmuch as it would provide a safe access into the subject property, and • it would take business clients off of West Coast Highway. Mr. Dickson Shafer, property owner of 2510 and 2530 West Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the parcel that he purchased from the State of California that had been used as a convenient dump sight. He explained that prior to said purchase, the City assured him that he would be given access to the extension of Avon Street after completion. Mr. Shafer read a letter that his father, Roy Shafer, had written in 1981 to Ben Nolan, Public Works Director, requesting a mutual agreement between Dickson Shafer and the City regarding access from the rear of the property to the proposed extension of Avon Street. Mr. Shafer submitted an acknowledgement of said letter from Ken Perry, Public Works Department. Mr. Shafer stated that subsequently the City requested that he purchase parking stalls after the grading was completed on Avon Street above the ShafePs property. Mr. Ernie Liske, 1200 Dover Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Liske requested that the Planning Commission approve the application as requested by the applicant without the aforementioned conditions of approval so • as to enhance the traffic circulation in the area. He addressed the practicality of imposing the requested conditions after a building is developed on the property. -12- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES ,o O� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R CALL INDEX Commissioner Pers6n asked what could be developed on the subject parcels without discretionary approval. Mr. Laycock explained new projects or an expansion of 2,500 square feet or more to an existing building require a Site Plan Review or a Use Permit under the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan. Mr. Webb addressed the City's desire to acquire dedications when the property owner subdivides the property inasmuch as the City is granting more of a use to the developer than when permits are being requested by an applicant. Mr. Webb addressed Section 19.24.140 (Undergrounding Utilities) of the Municipal Code, and he indicated that the requirement is the basis of Condition No. 14 in Exhibit "A". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Ms. Flory explained that the conditions imposed on the application are to be determined by the Planning Commission and may be required if the conditions are legitimate and reasonable in connection with the property. Ms. Flory stated that the conditions are imposed as a means of making the subdivision consistent with the intent of the General Plan and applicable Specific Area Plan. She said that the condition restricting Parcel No. 1 for parking purposes needs to be imposed to be consistent with the General Plan, inasmuch as the parcel is substandard in area. Mr. Roger Schwenk, 238 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition to the application on the basis that the traffic circulation from Avon Street would have an impact on Tustin Avenue. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Commissioner Di Sano made a motion to approve Resubdivision No. 926 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" on the basis that the expenses incurred by the conditions of approval could be shared by potential property owners. Commissioner Debay supported the motion based on staffs recommendation that the aforementioned conditions should be the responsibility of the property owners and not the leaseholders that come to the City for discretionary permits. She stated that the primary concern of the Planning Commission is to determine • if the request conforms with the City's General Plan. -13- COMMISSIONERS o� Amk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R CALL lNOex All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 926 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. MOTION CARRIED. Fin in : 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed resubdivision. 2. That in this case, the approval of a resubdivision containing parcels which do not have access to a public street and do not meet the minimum square footage requirement as specified in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan, is appropriate inasmuch as said parcels will not be for development purposes until such time as they are joined to a another parcel which front on West Coast Highway. 3. With the exceptions discussed above, 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. 4. As conditioned, the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. • 3. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory -14- COMMISSIONERS w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the intersection of West Coast Highway and the private driveway be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 6. That a 7 foot strip of land across the northerly side of the property be dedicated to the public so that the existing driveway can be widened to improve access to the parcels. 7. That the existing drive apron be reconstructed along the West Coast Highway frontage with the City standard flared drive apron per City Std 166 -L. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing drainage systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That 12 feet of right -of -way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along the West Coast Highway frontage; that the existing structure be allowed to encroach until such time as the City widens West Coast Highway; and at that time the City shall pay only the cost of rehabilitating and removing the structure from the public right -of -way. 10. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. • -15- COMMISSIONERS \�\� � � � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES RdWCALL INDEX 11. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 12. That Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 shall be used for parking purposes only unless combined with parcels having access to a public street. 13. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 14. That the overhead utilities be undergrounded across the West Coast Highway frontage of Parcel No. 2. 15. 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. . Use Permit No. 1806 (Amended)(PPublic Hearing) item No .4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1806A permitted the establishment of a delicatessen /restaurant facility with on -sale and off -sale beer and wine with outdoor seating in Approved the Newport Hills Center (i.e., Area 14 of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community). The proposed amendment involves a request to expand both the interior and outdoor "net public areas", and increase the hours of operation so as to allow the restaurant to open at 7:30 am. daily where the facility currently opens at 11:00 a.m. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the additional required off - street parking. LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract. No. 9014, located at 2632 San Miguel Drive, on the southeasterly corner of San Miguel Drive and Ford Road, in the Newport Hills Shopping Center. ZONE: P -C APPLICANTS: Dr. and Mrs. Jorge Luban, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -16- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to Condition No. 5 in Exhibit "A' requesting that a trash compactor be provided in the restaurant facility, and he recommended that the Planning Commission review said condition on the basis that the General Services Director has indicated that the past rationale for trash compactors is antiquated because compacting of the trash impedes the recycling effort. Commissioner Debay requested a clarification of the letter from the Irvine Retail Properties Company regarding their approval of a full liquor license for the subject restaurant. Mr. Laycock explained that the Planning Commission has not differentiated between a beer and wine license and a full liquor license unless the facility changes the operational characteristics or installs a bar. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mrs. Lucy Luhan, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein she concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1806 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the deletion of Condition No. 5. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the restriction of the outdoor dining area, the maker of the motion stated that the motion includes the approval, of the entire outdoor dining area. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. -17- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the proposed restaurant facility inasmuch as a majority of the patrons either work or reside or are otherwise already visiting in the vicinity. 4. That the Police Department has no objections with the proposed development. 5. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls and a portion of the required parking (17 spaces) will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 6. 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. 7. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1806 (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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to walls and a portion of the required parking (17 spaces) shall be waived. 3. That a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square feet of 'het public area" shall be provided on -site, except for the parking spaces waived by the Planning Commission. 4. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. am COMMISSIONERS o� tP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R CALL INDEX 5. Deleted. 6. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 7. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 8. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this Use Permit. 9. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1806 (Amended) shall remain in effect as a part of this approval. 10. That no temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted to • advertise the approved restaurant facility. 11. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjacent street and adjoining properties, and that said trash shall be stored at the rear of the site. 12. That the hours of operation of the restaurant facility shall be limited between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily. 13. That one bathroom accessible to the handicapped shall be provided for each.sex, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 14. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the 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, cause injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 15. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 . months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -19- COMMISSIONERS Ank CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3381 (Public Hearing) Item No.s Request to permit an as-built take -out restaurant with incidental UP3381 seating on property located in the M -1 -A District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off- Approved street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot 10, Tract No. 3201, located at 3848 Campus Drive, on the southeasterly corner of Campus Drive and Quail Street, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Jerry's Sandwich Shop, Newport Beach OWNER: Jack W. Mullan, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to • Condition No. 12 in Exhibit "A' and suggested that the condition could be deleted as recommended by a directive from the General Services Director. He further stated that the restaurant has been operating on the site for 16 years without a use permit. Commissioner Debay addressed her concerns pertaining to a concept that could be implemented between the Business License Division and the Planning Department to be assured that applicable businesses have use permits. Ms. Flory stated that a program as suggested has recently been initiated between the two Departments. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Yeong Yin, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Jack Mullan, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that he was not aware that the subject restaurant was operating without a use permit inasmuch as the facility was approved to operate by various official agencies. Mr. Mullan stated that the restaurant is supported by persons who work within walking distance of the operation; does a or traffic therefore, the restaurant not create parking -20- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX problem. Mr. Mullan addressed the parking requirement and the number of available parking spaces for the tenants. He also stated that he was not in favor of Condition of Approval No. 9 in Exhibit "A" which requires the enclosure of the trash bin that is located in the parking lot. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3381 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including deleted Condition No. 12. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the existing development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project has no significant environmental impact. • 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the existing facility and all uses on -site. 4. That the Police Department has no objections with the proposed development. 5. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, landscaping, and a portion of the required parking will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3381 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. -21- COMMISSIONERS 0 May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and that all the required additional parking spaces (12 spaces) shall be waived. 3. That the seating and dining area shall be incidental to the take -out restaurant and any introduction of table service will require amending the use permit. A maximum of 12 seats shall be permitted in the interior of the facility and a maximum of 4 seats shall be permitted outside the facility. 4. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 5. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the take -out restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 7. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and the location of the freestanding sign on Quail Street shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer for sight distance in accordance with City Standard 110 -L. 8. That no on -sale or off -sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Campus Drive and adjoining properties. The final location of the trash enclosure shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That outdoor seating provided in front of the facility or anywhere on the subject property shall be for the use of the tenants of the office complex and patrons of the subject restaurant and shall not be utilized for the exclusive use of the subject facility unless an amendment -22- INDEX COMMISSIONERS • • May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 11. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 12. Deleted. 13. That the employees of the subject facility shall park their vehicles on -site at all times. 14. 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 amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 15. 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. neral Plan Amendment No 89- 2(CC)(Public Hearing) I Item No.6 Request to allow commercial /residential mixed use in the "island" GPA89 -2 (C) area between North Newport Boulevard and Newport Boulevard in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area. It is also UP3380 proposed to amend the boundaries of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area to delete areas designated for SPR No.59 residential use and to consider changes to the issues identified for consideration in the preparation of the Specific Plan; and the Cont ' d to, acceptance of an environmental document. 5 -24 -90 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -23- AND COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES RdWbALL INDEX B. Use Permit No. 3380 (Public Hearing) Request to allow the construction of a combined commercial/ residential project containing 2,000 square feet of commercial development and 3 dwelling units on property located in the C- 1 District. The proposal also includes a request to permit commercial development which is less than .25 times the buildable area of the site. AND C Site Plan Review No. 59 (Public Hearin¢) Request to permit the construction of a combined commercial /residential development within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area where a Specific Plan has not yet been adopted. LOCATION: Lot 12, Tract No. 27 and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard, located at 447 North Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of North Newport Boulevard, in the island area between Orange Avenue and Hospital Road, in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Owen Minney, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant William L.aycock, Current Planning Manager, requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 1990, to allow the applicant additional time to make corrections to the proposed plans. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the May All Ayes 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. s r s The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. -24 COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Request to permit the retention of an as -built 5 foot 6 inch high wrought iron fence and related 6 foot high stone pilasters topped with 2 foot high light fixtures, which encroach 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Cameo Shores Road and which also encroach 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Hampden Road. The front yard setbacks are established by Districting Map No. 31. LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 3357, located at 345 Cameo Shores Road, on the southwesterly corner of Cameo Shores Road and Hampden Road, in Cameo Shores. ZONE: 0 11111111 APPLICANTS: Mr. & Mrs. Yasui, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dave Stephens, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Stephens stated that the subject wrought iron fence was approved by the Cameo Community Association's Architectural Committee. He indicated that he was not aware that a fence permit was required when the Building Permit was issued for the other improvements on the site. Mr. Stephens requested approval of security gates if the fence were not approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Frank Clendenen, 4639 Tremont Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he opposed the subject fence inasmuch as it is not compatible with the area. Ms. Horie appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Ms. Horie addressed the applicants' desire to reside in Newport Beach, and she stated that the fence would secure the subject property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff has -25- INDEX Item No.7 Cont'd to 5 -24 -90 COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 . MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX not received a letter from the Cameo Community Association's Architectural Committee indicating support of the subject fence. Mr. Ted Vandling, 4507 Hampden Road, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he requested that the applicants comply with the Zoning Code and Cameo Community Association regulations. He distributed photographs of the subject fence taken from various locations on Hampden Road. Mr. Vandling referred to his letter addressed to the Modifications Committee dated March 21, 1990. Mr. Vandling indicated that if the wrought iron fence would be redesigned to follow the driveway curve and to move the fence back to the old fence line, he could support the request. Mr. Vandling addressed the applicants' concerns regarding security in the neighborhood, and he indicated that there have been relatively few problems in the past. Ms. Diana Prosser, 330 Cameo Shores Road, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein she supported the modification on the basis that the applicants have made property • improvements. Mrs. Prosser stated that there have been burglaries in the neighborhood in the past, that the fence does not detract from the neighborhood, and that high walls are common throughout the neighborhood. Ms. Doretta Ensign, 215 Milford Road, member of the Architectural Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Ensign stated that she has not seen a letter of approval from the Architectural Committee indicating that the applicants may proceed with the project. Ms. Ensign stated that Finding No. 4 in Exhibit "A", that the Cameo Shores Community Association does not object to the subject fence, is not a true statement inasmuch as the Architectural Committee makes the decisions on projects. In reference to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Ms. Ensign replied that the Architectural Committee approved the fence plans as proposed with notations on the plans concerning only the landscaping. Ms. Ensign stated that the plans did not indicate the elevation of the fence. She further stated that the Architectural Committee also reviews plans after the City has approved the request: There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the . public hearing was closed at this time. -26- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 .6.� _ _ _ _. , MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX At the request of Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Stephens reappeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Stephens stated that the fence was constructed in January, 1990. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Laycock replied that if there is a security problem, there are methods to construct a high fence for security purposes in back of the required front yard setback. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Laycock explained that if the applicants maintained the required front yard 15 foot setback, a 24 foot high fence would be allowed, which meets the height regulations. He stated that the Association's CC &R's restricts the height of a fence or a building to a height of 14 feet. Mr. Laycock further stated that a Modification would not be necessary for the fence if the applicants maintained the required 15 foot front yard setback along Hampden Road and Cameo Shores Road. • Chairman Pomeroy stated that an opaque fence presents a different visual affect than a wrought iron fence. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that a setback should be maintained to provide vehicular sight distance. Commissioner Debay asked if a portion of the fence between the driveways could be moved back. Commissioner Merrill suggested eliminating portions of the fence along Hampden Road inasmuch as the existing block wall provides security, and he asked if there would be an objection to having two pilasters at the driveway entrances. Mr. Laycock stated that the gates could remain and the sight distance would be enhanced if the fence would be moved back. Motion Motion was made to continue Modification No. 3688 to the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the fence in accordance with the foregoing recommendations. Chairman Pomeroy suggested relocating the fence between the driveway and the corner of the property on Hampden Road, and • then allow the fence to come back to the pilaster adjacent to the driveway on Hampden Road. _27_ COMMISSIONERS .� .o s p� � o Cn� AskO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX Commissioner Glover opposed the wrought iron fence as proposed and she recommended that the fence meet the front yard setback requirements. Motion was voted on to continue Modification No. 3688 to the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION All Ayes CARRIED. Establishment of Grade (Discussion) Item No.s Request for the Planning Commission to establish grade in Establish accordance with Section 20.87.200 of the Municipal Code for an Grade existing developed site located in the R -2-B District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 16, Tract No. 1237, located at 479 Morning Canyon Road, on the easterly side of Morning Canyon Road, between Seaward Road and East Coast Highway, in Corona Highlands. ZONE: R -2 -B APPLICANT: Brian Dawson and Associates, Irvine OWNER: Robert Shawn Helda, Newport Beach W. William Ward, Senior Planner, addressed how the Zoning Code applies to the subject project inasmuch as the height provisions state that the height shall be measured from natural grade unless the natural grade has been altered wherein the grade shall be existing grade. Mr. Ward referred to the photograph attached to the staff report wherein he noted that the former garage was cut into the slope area where the applicant is requesting to establish grade. He stated that if the grade at the garage level were to be used to measure the building height, the structure would exceed the building height by 4 feet. Mr. Ward stated that by establishing the new grade, the proposed structure would conform to the 24 foot height limit. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Ward replied that the grade has to be established by an • approved grading plan recognized by the City. -28- COMMISSIONERS .o WA& CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES RCMFCALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill asked what is the finished surface of the existing garage. Mr. Ward replied that the dirt under the original garage is at an elevation of 119.3 feet, and the elevation of the proposed structure is 149 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Ward stated that two double garages are proposed for the project and the proposed pad elevation for the garage is 120.7 feet and the top of the curb is 118.65 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Ward stated that staff is in accord with the request and it will not adversely impact the property on either side of the property. Mr. Shawn Helda, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Establishment of All Ayes Grade on property located at 479 Morning Canyon Drive subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W. MOTION • CARRIED. Fin in : 1. That the right side grade proposed by the applicant generally conforms to the existing grade on the right side of the site and to the grades of the adjoining properties. 2. That the right side grade proposed by the applicant is more reasonable and workable considering the entire structure conforms to the 24 foot basic height limit with the exception of a small portion (246± square feet) of the building foot print located on the front of the lot. 3. That the establishment of the right side grade as proposed by the applicant is consistent with the intent of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code. 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 proposed development. • 5. That public improvements may be constructed to guarantee that proper grade be established at property line -29- COMMISSIONERS • 0 May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX and that sight distances are provided per Section 20.87.200 of the Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. That the future development on the site shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a five (5) foot wide sidewalk be constructed along the Morning Canyon Drive frontage and that the existing palm tree be removed from the public right -of -way or lowered to street grade. That all work within the public right -of -way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public works Department. Planning Commission Review No. 12 (Continued Discussion) I Item N0.9 Request to review height limit in the height required by 3 chimneys which exceed the R -1 District and which exceed the Uniform Building Code. 24 foot basic ( PCR No. 12 the minimum LOCATION: Lots 5 and 17, Block C -33, Corona del Mar, located at 2719 Shell Street, on the southwesterly side of Shell Street between Fernleaf Avenue and Way Lane, in China Cove. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Martha and Jim Beauchamp, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, requested that this item be continued to the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting so as to verify the height of the subject chimneys. -30- Cont'd to 5 -24 -90 COMMISSIONERS Motion All Ayes 0 • May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Motion was made and voted on to continue Planning Commission Review No. 12 to the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Modification No. 3635 (Discussion) Request to appeal the decision of the Planning Director that made the determination that Modification No. 3635 is null and void. The applicant's request is to permit additions and structural alterations to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling with detached garage which currently encroaches into the required front and side yard setbacks. The applicant proposes to add a second floor to both structures and join the structures by means of a second floor deck. The new second floor will maintain all required setbacks. LOCATION: Lot 13, Block 2, Section 1, Balboa Island, located at 211 Emerald Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Emerald Avenue between Park Avenue and North Bay Front, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Howard C. Martin, Architect, Balboa Island OWNERS: Mr. & Mrs. Bart M. Hackley Jr., West Lake Village Mr. Howard Martin, Architect for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he reviewed the subject project. Mr. Martin stated that the problems concerning the nonconforming structure's foundation occurred when construction commenced on the project; however, he said that if an inspection had been required prior to applying for a modification, it is possible the problem could have been prevented. Mr. Fred Wood, 214 Opal Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he described a diagram depicting the proposed project. Mr. Wood reviewed the procedures that he took to process the plans through the Building and Planning Departments. -31- INDEX Item No. 10 Permitted to Continu Construct. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Debay agreed that when a nonconforming structure is being remodeled that a structure's foundation should Motion * be inspected so as to avoid problems. Motion was made to approve Modification No. 3635 and allow the development to continue as being in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. Chairman Pomeroy stated that a nonconforming structure allows a larger structure than what would be permitted under the current General Plan and Zoning Code. He said that it is not correct to allow an old sub - standard building go through the permit process without further review. Commissioner Pers6n and Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, discussed a review process that could be implemented between applicants and staff pertaining to nonconforming structures. Commissioner Pers6n stated that as a result of a sub - standard nonconforming building not being able to be remodeled that the structure is subsequently rebuilt to nonconforming regulations. • William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to a condition that was applied to the subject Modification stating "That should the existing nonconforming walls' vertical structural members be removed or demolished, this modification shall become null and void. . " Mr. Laycock explained that the Modifications Committee will clearly review requests for second floor additions if existing nonconforming walls need to be upgraded. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the Planning Commission's concern is that property owners are allowed to circumvent a nonconforming structure's building bulk and size requirements. Commissioner Glover opposed the motion on the basis that similar requests are a frequent problem inasmuch as property owners are reconstructing structures instead of remodeling the nonconforming buildings. Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion. He concurred with the previous statements expressed by Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner Pers6n; however, he said that the applicant should not be penalized. I* I* I *I *I *I *I *I Motion was voted onto allow the proposed development to be continued. MOTION CARRIED. -32- COMMISSIONERS ALL May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Variance No. 1163 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R -1.5 District which exceeds 1.5 times the buildable area of the site, and exceeds the allowable building height in the 24/28 Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the structure to encroach between 2 feet and 3 feet 4 inches into the required 10 foot front yard setback and 2 feet into the required 3 foot side yard setback; a modification to allow a 5± foot high protective railing around a raised patio located within the required 10 foot front yard setback; and a request to permit a chimney which exceeds both the 24 foot basic height limit and the minimum height required by the Building Code. LOCATION: Lot 7, Block 3, Section 1, Balboa Island, located at 107 Garnet Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Garnet Avenue, between South Bay Front and Park Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: William J. Willis, Balboa Island OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bill Willis, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he presented a petition signed by the majority of the neighbors in the area. Mr. Willis stated that 1.5 times buildable area has enhanced the livable standards on Balboa Island; however, said requirement has created an impact on his property inasmuch as he has an unusually shaped lot. Mr. Willis stated that the gross area of his lot is 2,188 square feet compared to the 2,550 square feet that is the standard sized lot; the existing structure is 1,300 square feet; and the proposed project is 2,303 square feet. • Mr. Willis addressed the setback at the rear of the lot; that the proposed first and second floors will encroach into the 10 foot front yard setback wherein a portion of the first floor will be -33- INDEX Item Noll V1163 Approved COMMISSIONERS .o W Aft CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES ROWFCALL INDEX set back an additional 5 feet to provide an additional open area for the neighbors; and the roofs turret exceeds the height limit by two feet but does not impact the adjoining structures. Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Willis discussed the architecture on the roof that is the cause for the increased height. Mr. Willis stated that a typical lot size allows .988 floor area to land area wherein he compared the unusual shape of the subject lot to an adjoining lot and he stated that he should not be restricted from building a structure on said lot. Mr. Willis stated that approximately 20 lots have been subdivided into half -lots wherein he referred to a previously approved variance on an unusually sized lot. He said that 141 square feet above the .988 buildable area consists of 20 square feet in the garage so as to provide adequate space for an automobile, and 120 square feet provides for a walk -in closet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Willis stated that his primary requests would be to maintain the 141 square feet over the typical .988 ratio of floor area to land area, the garage encroachment into the side yard setback, and the front yard setback encroachments. Commissioner Merrill . addressed his concern regarding the height of the patio that encroaches into the front yard setback area. Inasmuch as no one else appeared before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Don Webb, City Engineer, requested the elimination of the building encroachments in the side yard setback adjacent to the alley. He stated that where 10 foot or 14 foot wide alleys exist in the City, and where the Zoning Code allows a 6 foot high fence along a side yard adjacent to the alley and there is only a 5 foot rear yard setback on the opposite side of said alley, there is less than a 20 foot wide area for automobiles to maneuver in the alley. Mr. Webb suggested that if it is desired to allow a 6 foot high fence along the side property line adjacent to an alley, then perhaps the rear yard setback on the opposite side of the alley should be increased from 5 feet to 7 or 8 feet, so as to provide a 20 foot wide area. If it is desired to maintain the 5 foot rear yard setback, then restrictions need to be made in the side yard setbacks adjacent to an alley. Mr. Webb indicated that the Public Works Department has recommended that nothing should be permitted on the subject higher property in the side yard setback adjacent to the alley -34- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX than 6 inches, so that said area can be used when automobiles are backed out of garages on the opposite side of the alley; however, the proposed development has encroachments into said side yard setback. Mr. Webb suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to make recommendations to amend the Zoning Code so as to correct the situation. Mr. Laycock stated that the Planning Department believes that the garage encroachment into the interior side yard property line would be more objectionable then the proposed encroachments, inasmuch as it would result in a reduction of light and air for the subject property and the adjoining lot. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the findings that are required to approve a variance as stated in the staff report, and he referred to the first statement of support as presented by the applicant as justifiable to support the variance. Commissioner Pers6n stated that three findings must be supported. He said that 141 square feet for a walk -in closet is . not considered a basis to grant a variance. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a variance could be considered as a parody with other properties in the area with the idea that it is not a special privilege. She stated that the unusually shaped lot could prohibit the applicant from enjoying the same property rights as the adjoining neighbors. Commissioner Debay questioned whether the applicant would be permitted 1.73 times buildable area if the front yard setback were denied, and the side yard encroachment and height were approved. Discussion ensued between Mr. Willis, Chairman_ Pomeroy, and Commissioner Merrill regarding the impact that the proposed project would have on the adjacent property, and the front yard setbacks. Commissioner Glover referred to Exhibit 'B ", requesting the applicant to reduce the project by 141 square feet, and she asked if the proposed project would be built as a parody to structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Laycock stated that the reduction of • 141 square feet of floor area would be the same land area to building area ratio as a typical lot on Balboa Island. -35- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES ROWECALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1163 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" that requires a reduction in floor area of 141 square feet without the height variance or front yard encroachments. Commissioner Pers6n agreed to allow the front yard encroachment, and the side yard setback. Finding No. 4 was modified to add "front yard setback ". Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. Chairman Pomeroy asked the maker of the motion to modify the floor area so as to allow additional garage space. The maker of the motion opposed the amendment inasmuch as it would be difficult to regulate 20 square feet in the garage area. Commissioner Merrill and Chairman Pomeroy addressed the 141 square feet that would be reduced in floor area as suggested in Exhibit "B ". Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Variance No. 1163 Motion subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B", amended as * * * * follows: allowing the additional 141 square feet in floor area; not * " * allowing the requested height; with the front yard encroachment. Mr. Laycock asked if the maker of the motion requested the approval of the front yard setback to include both building and raised patio encroachments. Commissioner Merrill explained that the height of the deck was not included in the substitute motion. Mr. Laycock stated that the height of the deck would not be allowed higher than 3 feet, but the building can encroach. Commissioner Merrill stated that the height of the tower and the chimney would be reduced with the substitute motion. Commissioner Pers6n did not support the motion on the basis that the variance would be setting a precedent. Substitute motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1163 subject to the findings and conditions as amended in Exhibit "B ", as follows: allow the 141 square feet of additional floor area; allow the side yard encroachments and building encroachment in the front yard setback; deny the raised patio encroachment in the front yard setback, and deny the height of the building and chimney that exceed the permitted heights. MOTION CARRIED. • -36- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District inasmuch as the subject property is irregular in shape and smaller than the typical lot on Balboa Island, which justifies the granting of a variance for buildable area. 2. That the granting of the variance for the increased floor area, up to a maximum of 2,303 square feet, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicants, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the irregularly shaped lot has less buildable area than other small lots on Balboa Island, since the site has a larger front yard setback than other lots. 3. That the granting of the variance for the increased floor area, up to a maximum of 2,303 square feet, will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed building encroachments into the required ground floor garage and second floor deck encroachments into the alley side yard setback, and the building encroachment into the front yard setback will not under the circumstances of the 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 modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of • Title 20 of the Municipal Code, inasmuch as the Zoning Code permits the construction of a 6 foot high fence along the alley side property line, and the front yard -37- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES O� Aft N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R CALL INDEX encroachment and related increased setback adjacent to the interior side property line will provide more views and open space to the adjoining residential property. 5. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots within the surrounding neighborhood which justifies the granting of a variance to exceed the allowable height limit. 6. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the allowable height limit, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant inasmuch as there are reasonable design alternatives available to the applicant which would comply with the height limit requirements. 7. That the approval of a variance to exceed the allowable height limit will, 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 the subject project and will be detri- mental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and to the general welfare of the City. 8. That the proposed patio and protective railing encroachment into the required front yard setback will under the circumstances of the 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 said modification is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code in conjunction with the new construction on the property. 9. 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. -38- COMMISSIONERS May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 10. That the additional chimney height as shown on the submitted plans is objectionable and may block views from surrounding properties. 11. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, except as noted below. 2. That the gross floor area of the dwelling shall not exceed 2,303 square feet (including a garage). 3. That no portion of the raised patio and protective railing located within the required 10 foot front yard setback shall exceed 3 feet in height. 4. That the proposed structure shall not exceed the 24 foot is basic height limit. 5. That the displaced and deteriorated sidewalk be reconstructed along the Garnet Avenue frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That a 5 foot by 5 foot corner cut -off at the intersection of the two alleys be dedicated to the public and that the existing post at the alley intersection be removed. 8. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alleys, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by isOrdinance and the Public Works Department. -39- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 10. May 10, 1990 MINUTES That the development of the subject property shall be limited to one dwelling unit. 11. That the proposed chimney height shall not exceed a height of 2 feet above any portion of the roof within ten feet of the chimney. 12. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the approval of building permits. 13. 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. Variance No. 1164 (Public H ::. Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling is which will exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site and will provide less than the required open space, on property located in the R -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow: a 7 foot building encroachment and a 10 foot second floor deck encroachment within the required 20 foot front yard setback adjacent to First Avenue; a 5 ft. - 6 in.± building encroachment and a 7 ft: 6 in.± second floor deck encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback; and the construction of a carport on the front one -half of the lot. LOCATION: Portions of Lots No. 2 and 4, Block 429, Corona del Mar, located at 2306 First Avenue, on the northeasterly side of First Avenue, between Acacia Avenue and Begonia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: John and Janet Gothard, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants • William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, responded affirmatively to Chairman Pomeroy's inquiry that the floor area 10 INDEX Item No.12 V1164 Approved COMMISSIONERS Ask d � o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES RdWCALL INDEX of the subject loft is included in the square footage of the dwelling. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Gothard, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Gothard replied that he also concurred with the conditions in Exhibit "B ", that requires installation of a garage door. Mr. Gothard circulated a photograph of the property depicting the carport and garage area, and he agreed that a garage door would enhance the property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1164 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ", requires installation of garage doors. Commissioner Debay supported the motion. She requested that the Planning Commission discuss, in the future, concerns that she has that the installation of garage doors increases the gross floor area to a building. All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1164, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District inasmuch as the subject property is quite small and is comprised of portions of two previously subdivided lots and that the resulting reorientation of the property has resulted in overly restrictive setbacks which excessively limit the amount of allowable gross structural area on the site. In a similar manner, the required setbacks have prohibited the applicants from providing the required • volume of open space, inasmuch as a large portion of the -41- COMMISSIONERS is • May 10, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH proposed open space is located within the required 20 foot front and 10 foot rear yard setbacks. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicants, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and that the resulting open space, based on the proposed setbacks and containing one or more dimensions less than six feet, provides an adequate amount of open space within the project. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks will not under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the proposed carport without a garage door on the front one -half of the lot will under the circumstances of the 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 said modification is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. b. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large -42- INDEX COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7. May 10, 1990 MINUTES INDEX for access through or use of property within the proposed development. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. CONDMONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed project shall fully comply with the height limit provisions of the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. 3. That the second floor deck shall maintain a rear yard setback of at least 3 feet. . 4. That the gross structural area of the project shall not exceed 2,482± sq.ft. 5. That a covenant shall be recorded in the Orange County Recorder's office to hold portions of the two lots as a single building site. 6. That the proposed carport shall be converted to a garage with side walls and an operating garage door. 7. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. That a sidewalk be constructed and deteriorated curb, gutter and drive apron be reconstructed along the First Avenue frontage. Work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. -43- COMMISSIONERS �� c� d� Y c� �,�o� y�N oq� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX 10. That the development of the subject property shall be limited to one dwelling unit. 11. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the approval of building permits. 12. 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. Amendment No. 710 (Public Hearing) stem No .13 A710 Request to amend the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Plan so as to raise the approved pad elevation on (81225) Site No. 8 from Elevation 126 to Elevation 128. Approved LOCATION: Parcel 8 of Parcel Map 93-45, located at 8 Corporate Plaza, on the easterly boundary of . the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, adjacent to the future extension of Avocado Avenue. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Baldwin Company, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Mary Anne Gutierrez, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1225, All Ayes recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 710, amending the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 0 -44- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES INDEX Discussion Items: Discussion Items Use Permit No. 1816, Use Permit No. 1816 (Amended) and Variance No. 1087 #1- UP1816 UP1816A Request to review the Planning Commission staff reports and excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes in conjunction with No Action the Beachcomber Restaurant, located at 2633 West Coast Taken Highway. Commissioner Pers6n stated that precedent was set when the Planning Commission approved the Stuft Noodle Restaurant's parking requirements. He suggested that no action be taken on this item No. 2 oe s * Commissioner Pers6n made a motion and voted on that the condition of approval requiring the installation of trash Trash compactors compactors be deleted on future use permit applications or condition amended use permits for restaurant uses and on future Deleted modification applications for Specialty Food Services. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 708 No. 3 Request to amend Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to set Public establish the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) District. Hearing 6 -7 -90 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Sandra Genis, Senior Planner, stated that the subject amendment establishes the first of four commercial Zoning Districts. She indicated that a summary table will be included in the Zoning Code for spec uses. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the four primary Zoning Districts, Ms. Genis explained that the General Retail and Service Commercial category provided by the subject amendment would not apply to the -45- COMMISSIONERS O Wr. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX neighborhood commercial centers inasmuch as the centers have a mixture of uses permitted with a fixed "Floor Area Ratio" whereas the strip commercial has a variable "Floor Area Ratio" depending on use. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public All Ayes hearing on June 7, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. s i i Amendment No. 709 No. 4 Request to amend Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to A709 establish the Residential Overlay District. Set Public INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Hearing 6/7/90 Motion Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public All Ayes hearing on June 7, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. s s s Amendment No. 711 No. 5 Request to consider the initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, revising the permitted A711 — uses in the Recreational and Marine Commercial, and the Retail set Public and Service Commercial areas of the Mariner's Mile Specific Hearing Area Plan (SP -5); and amend language in Title 20 of the 6/7/90 Newport Beach Municipal Code concerning "Specialty Food Service ". INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public All Ayes hearing on June 7, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add' 1 The Planning Commission directed staff to place the following Business items on the Planning Commission Agenda as Discussion Items at the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting: -46- COMMISSIONERS O Ask CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1990 MINUTES R CALL INDEX 1. Request to consider amending the Municipal Code so as Alley to provide better vehicular circulation in alleys where the Circulation side yard of a residential lot is directly across the alley from the rear yard of another residential lot. 2. Request to consider attaching standardized conditions of standard approval on Planning Commission staff reports. conditions s s s Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Debay Deba All Ayes from the May 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Excused MOTION CARRIED. . : s ADJOURNMENT: 10:55 p.m. Adjourrnnen1 s s s JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -47-