Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1989COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES a PLACE: City Council Chambers o \100 TIME: 7:30 P:M. �CC�o��p DATE: May 18, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager W. William Ward, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary ,tit* Minutes of May 4. 1989, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.of Commissioner Pers6n stated that "aligning their options" 5 -4 -89 0 in the bottom paragraph of page 17 should be revised to read "limiting their options." Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the corrected May * * * * * * 4, 1989, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Ayes Abstain Public Comments: public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comments non - agenda items. COMMISSIONERS F � yOGy�o�NO� CCP12 o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 R01-7 CALL INDEX Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 12, 1989, in front of City Hall. Reauest for Continuances: Request William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the for appellant, Roland W. Day II, requested that Item No. 3, Continuance Modification No. 3533, located at 1369 Galaxy Drive, regarding the construction of a garage, be continued to the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. However, inasmuch as the applicant, Tina Seri, will be unavailable to attend the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the June 22, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. on * Motion was made and voted on to continue Modification No. yes 3533 to the June 22, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 893 (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel 8893 of land for two unit residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 31, Newport Beach, located at 3114 West Ocean Front, on the northeasterly corner of West Ocean Front and 32nd Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Richard and Evelyn Francua; and Fred and Angel Kleinbub, San Diego OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER/ • ARCHITECT: Brion S. Jeannette, Newport Beach -2- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Rob Williams, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Williams replied that the application complies with the open space requirements, that the bedroom sizes are 8 feet by 8 feet, and the applicants will reside in the three bedroom condominium units. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Williams 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 x 'Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 893 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Pers6n supported the motion reluctantly. He • addressed the development plans, and the square footage of the lots that are presently permitted to construct two unit condominium development. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision 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. 4. 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. • -3- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROLT CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 0 CONDITIONS: 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 all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley and that the existing drive approach on 32nd Street be replaced with concrete sidewalk. 5. That the garage spaces shall maintain a minimum rear yard setback of 7 feet from the alley. 6. That the design of the drive access shall be subject to further approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 9. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 10. 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. -4- COMMISSIONERS - y�Gly���°ypCC�ow o�px CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 894 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel 9894 of land for two unit residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 14, Block 29, Newport Beach, located at 116 30th Street, on the southeasterly side of 30th Street, between West Balboa Boulevard and West Ocean Front, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: James M. Okuley, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Gregory J. Cook, Costa Mesa . The public hearing was opened at this time. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 894 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Chairman Pomeroy explained that the applicant would be required to comply with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" inasmuch as no one appeared before the Planning Commission for discussion. All Ayes Motion was voted on, 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. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yd99yy,y May 18, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. 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 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 arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion • of the public improvements. 4. 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. 5. That the broken sections of the concrete alley be sawcut and reconstructed along the property frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 9. 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. 6- COMMISSIONERS \00� s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX Modification No. 3533 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to permit the construction of a garage, a portion Mod.3533 of which is 14± feet wide and encroaches up to 2 feet into the required 6 foot rear yard setback. Continued to LOCATION: Lot 241, Tract No. 4224, located at 1369 6 -22 -89 Galaxy Drive, on the northerly side of Galaxy Drive, between Rigel Circle and Polaris Drive, in Dover Shores. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANTS: Robert Dabrowski and Tina Seri, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant APPELLANT: Roland W. Day II, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the Appellant, Mr. Day, requested that this item be continued to the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. However, inasmuch as the applicant, Ms. Seri will not be available on June 8, 1989, the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the June 22, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Modification No. All Ayes 894 to the June 22, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. i Use Permit No. 1922 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1922A permitted the establishment of a boat repair and maintenance facility on property located in the Continued "Recreational and Marine Commercial" area of the Cannery to Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposed 6 -8 -89 amendment includes a request to obtain the approval of a professional office use in the "Recreational Marine Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposal also includes: a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a new employee and customer parking area to be located at 226 21st Street; and the review of the operation of an existing boat crane which -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROL CALL INDEX exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit up to a maximum height of 45 feet in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 79 -732 (Resubdivision No. 644), located at 223 21st Street, on the northwesterly side of 21st Street between The Arcade and Newport Bay, and Lots 14 through 17, Block 220, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 226 21st Street, on the southeasterly side of 21st Street, between The Arcade and Newport Bay, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Peninsula Shipyard, Inc., Newport Beach . OWNER: Norman C. Schmitt, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Norman Schmitt, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Don Skelly, 218 - 21st Street, owner of the residential property adjacent to the subject site, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Skelly submitted photographs of the site that he said indicated the shipyard has completely taken over the end of 21st Street. Mr. Skelly stated that when the applicant barricaded the street in August, 1988, the end of the street was filled with boats; that there is an existing outdoor speaker that has been used periodically; that the number of employees currently working on the site has doubled within the past.ten years; and the boat owners frequent the site on weekends and evening hours. Mr. Skelly objected to the activity during late night and early morning hours, and he suggested that the hours of operation observe the City's required general construction hours of operation. In response to .questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Skelly explained that the City's permitted construction . hours are: Monday through Friday - 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Saturdays -8:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m.; and Sundays and Holidays -10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Skelly replied that he would -8- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES timG9����9P`v�4 y�m+y May 18, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RCL CALL INDEX not object to said hours, and he pointed out that there are several construction projects currently in progress in the neighborhood. Mr. Skelly further replied that 21st Street is no longer barricaded off; however, he requested that i the applicants cooperate with the neighbors. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the barracaded street would be in violation of the Vehicle Code. Discussion ensued between Mr. Skelly and Commissioner Pers6n with respect to the barracade, and the neighbors' responsibility to contact the Police Department regarding said barracade. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Skelly replied that he would concur with the application if the Planning Commission modified the conditions of approval. Ms. Korade explained that the facility is a permitted use as well as an incentive use, and the change in operational characteristics do not require a use permit, including the regulations to control • the hours of operation. Ms. Korade suggested that concerns with respect to noise be referred to Gregg Armstrong of the Police Department. Chairman Pomeroy and Ms. Korade discussed the similarity of construction noise and the noise from the boatyard inasmuch as many of the power tools are comparable. Ms. Korade referred to Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code wherein she explained that the Chapter pertaining to noise does not apply to a boatyard facility. She said that the boatyard would fall under the control of the Noise Ordinance that the City is currently considering adopting from the County. Discussion ensued between Chairman Pomeroy, Commissioner Pers6n, and Ms. Korade with respect to the findings and conditions that the Planning Commission may impose on the use permit. Ms. Korade explained that the City Attorney's office could initiate an amendment to Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code that would apply not only to excavation and construction but also to boatyard operations. She suggested that Mr. Armstrong appear before the Planning Commission with respect to the Commission's concerns regarding noise. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -9- COMMISSIONERS G��O �9CCPO�yo$c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 R CALL INDEX Motion * Commissioner Di Sano made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 1922 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and he suggested that a finding be added that would state that the facility be required to curtail the noise so as to be more considerate of the neighbors: Commissioner Pers6n amended the motion to add Condition No. 13 to Exhibit "A ", stating that the approval of the modification for tandem parking spaces shall be limited to the hours that conform with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as it relates to construction activities within the City, and that staff determine the appropriate finding. In response to a question posed by Ms. Korade, Commissioner Pers6n explained that the hours that would be available for tandem parking would relate to the hours of operation for the boat repair and maintenace facility. Motion Withdrawn Commissioner Di Sano withdrew his motion, and the public hearing was reopened. . Mr. Schmitt reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he could not operate the shipyard and physically park the number of automobiles as stated. He indicated his desire to comply with the conditions and his attempt to acquire adjacent property to fulfill the parking requirement. Mr. Schmitt explained that the boatyard makes an effort to be considerate of the neighbors inasmuch as the work that is done at night and on weekend mornings is quiet work such as painting, etc. Mr. Schmitt suggested that the item be continued until after he has received legal advise concerning the hours of operation as suggested by the Planning Commission. He explained that there is work that can be accomplished at night and on weekend mornings that would not disturb the neighbors. Ms. Korade asked Mr. Schmitt if he knew that the Planning Commission could not impose a condition on the subject use permit, would he still agree on the basis of a good neighbor policy? Mr. Schmitt replied that he would agree on the basis of good common sense and as a good neighbor. Commissioner Pers6n asked if Mr. Schmitt would voluntarily agree to a condition based on the previous statement, that the use of power tools in and about the open yard would not be utilized during the evening and early morning hours, and said tools would only be used during the daytime hours of • operation? Mr. Schmitt reluctantly agreed. -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROLT CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion Ayes 0 Ms. Korade stated that inasmuch as there is a conceptual agreement between the applicant and the Planning Commission concerning the use of power tools and noise as opposed to something that is very, very quiet, she suggested that the City Attorney's office meet with the applicant to draft an agreement concerning activities that would be restricted and activities that should be permitted during certain hours. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Pers6n and Ms. Korade with respect to a condition pertaining to the control of power tools except for hours permitted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Schmitt commented that he would prefer to an agreement written by the City Attorney's office. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the parking.area located at 226 - 21st Street, Mr. Schmitt explained that the unstriped asphalt parking area has been used since January, 1988. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Schmitt explained that he would prefer to meet with the City Attorney's office so as to draft an explicit agreement to be assured that certain activities are included. Mr. Schmitt indicated that he did not disagree with the Planning Commission's concern regarding the noise factor. Chairman Pomeroy stated for the record that a short written agreement shall be reached between the City Attorney's office and the applicant regarding noise generating construction activities, and that the Planning Commission consider approving the use permit without attempting to add Condition No. 13. Commissioner Winburn suggested that the item be continued until after the City Attorney has met with the applicant to draft an agreement that would be acceptable to the applicant and the Planning Commission. Mr. Schmitt agreed with the recommendation. The public hearing was closed at this time. * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. * * * * * * 1922 (Amended) to the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission * meeting so as to allow the City Attorney's office sufficient time to draft language appropriate for proposed Condition No. 13. MOTION CARRIED. -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ym 99 yy� G9 9 m�y9c S'O yo y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 18, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3351 (Public Hearing) Item No.S UP3351 Request to permit the establishment of a temporary automobile service, washing and detailing facility for the staff and physicians of the Hoag Memorial Hospital and the Approved Lido Medical Center, on property located adjacent to the proposed Cancer Center in the Unclassified District. Said facility will be in operation only during the construction of the new Lido Medical parking structure. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, on the Hoag Hospital property, which is located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Dana L. Carl /Sterling Detail, Newport Beach OWNER: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, recommended that the following be added to Condition No. 10: "That the site shall be restored to its existing condition after termination of the proposed use." The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dana Carl, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 10. In response to questions posed by Commissioner PersSn, Mr. Carl replied that he has a one year lease at the subject site; that he intends to operate the business at the subject site for one year until the Newport Lido Medical Center opens; that he intends to have an agreement with Hoag Hospital after the subject use permit is approved; and that he does not yet have an agreement with Newport Lido Medical Center to operate a detail business when the construction of the building is completed. • In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Dana replied that he previously operated a detail business at the Newport Lido Medical Center without a use permit; however, he will apply for a use permit prior to -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES NPO\0\1� May 18, 1989 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX establishing a detail business at Newport Lido Medical Center. Commissioner Debay pointed out that the staff report provides information pertaining to the required use permit at the Newport Lido Medical Center. Ms. Joan Lindsay, President of Balboa Coves, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Lindsay indicated the concerns that the residents have with respect to long term retail uses mixed with residential uses in the area, and she referred to the recent adopted General Plan. Commissioner Pers6n explained that the development that Hoag Hospital is proposing will continue to enhance activity in the area. Ms. Lindsay and Commissioner Pers6n addressed the Master Plan that Hoag will be proposing to the City in the Fall, 1989. In response to a question posed by Ms. Lindsay, Commissioner Pers6n explained that the automobiles that the applicant intends to detail are • owned by persons who are parking their automobiles on the site daily. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to Condition No. 9, Ms. Korade explained that it would be difficult to enforce the condition that limits auto detailing and service activities to the doctors and staff unless a complaint is received from the public or a local resident. Mr. Laycock indicated that inasmuch as the applicant is proposing to operate alone, there will not be a great number of automobiles washed at one time. Commissioner Debay acknowledged the concern that was expressed by the residents of Balboa Coves; however, she stated that because the residences are located behind a wall and across West Coast Highway, a one man automobile detail business would not create any hardship on them. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3351 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 10. Commissioner Pers6n requested that Condition No. 10 be further modified to state that the use permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission, if necessary, and not the Modifications Committee. The maker of the motion agreed with the amended Condition. -13- COMMISSIONERS N\WJ�°s om� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pers6n suggested that a condition be added that would limit the operational characteristics of the business to one employee, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. The maker of the + motion denied the request. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the automobile detail operation is a retail use that reduces traffic inasmuch as the automobiles would already be on site. Commissioner Winburn referred to Condition No. 13 that states that the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of the use permit upon a determination that the operation is detrimental to the community. Commissioner Debay opposed Commissioner Pers6n's request to amend Condition No. 13 that would limit the operational characteristics of the business. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3351 subject * * * * * to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", incuding * * amended Condition No. 10 as stated. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That the Police Department does not foresee any problems with the proposed project. 4. That adequate off - street parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the proposed develop- ment. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3351 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the • general welfare of the City. -14- COMMISSIONERS yB+L 9 9 y y� G 9, P y alt CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROITFCALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations except as i noted below. 2. That all wash water shall drain into a temporary holding tank and that the drain of the tank shall be equipped with a trap for the collection of auto wash residue. 3. That the holding tank shall be pumped out on a regular basis, adequate to ensure against overflow of the tank. 4. That all car wash activities shall be contained beneath an awning or other cover which shall be designed in such a manner that it will prevent rain water from entering the sanitary drain to the holding tank. This will require the provision of curbing along the perimeter of a raised surface of the wash facility, as well as a cover over the wash area. The • exact design shall be reviewed and approved by the Building, Planning, and Public Works Departments. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 6. That two parking spaces shall be provided for the detailing operation, in addition to the two spaces that will be blocked by the wash installation. 7. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 8. That access to the site shall not be permitted from West Coast Highway. 9. That the proposed auto detailing and service activities shall be limited to the doctors and staff from the Lido Medical Building and Hoag Memorial Hospital. 10. This use permit shall expire within two years unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. The site shall be restored to its existing condition after termination of the proposed use. -15- COMMISSIONERS Z 11 CC 101O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 RO= CALL INDEX 11. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily. 13. 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. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Variance No. 1152 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.6 V1152 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling which will exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site, will provide less than the required open space Continued and exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 to Foot Height Limitation District, on property located in the 6 -8 -89 R -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow: a 10 foot building encroachment, a 14 foot chimney encroachment, a 14 foot 6 inch second floor deck encroachment, all within the required 20 foot front yard setback adjacent to First Avenue; and a 7 foot building encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2 and 4, Block 429, Corona del Mar, located at 2310 First Avenue, on the northeasterly side of First Avenue, between Acacia Avenue and Begonia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Arthur Leeser and Robert Feiss, Los • Angeles OWNERS: Same as applicants -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES _ May 18, 1989 y� A\<r �o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Greg Kindy appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A" and "B ". Y There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pers6n indicated he did not support the applicants' statement of support as required by law, "that the residence would increase the value of the property for this and adjacent properties 2 or 3 fold, and that 3510 Lake Avenue was granted a similar request." Motion was Motion * made to deny Variance No. 1152 subject to the Findings in Exhibit "C ". Commissioner Pers6n explained that the applicant could have submitted a better plan. Commissioner Merrill concurred with the foregoing statement. He explained that the size of the structure should be limited to the size of the sub - standard lot. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, replied that approximately five Variances have recently been approved for residential development on small sub - standard lots in the City, in addition to the approval of the Variance at 3510 Lake Avenue. He explained that there are many sub - standard lots in the City that are similar to the subject lot that currently have houses on them that will eventually be removed, and new dwellings will be constructed on the sub - standard lots. Mr. Laycock explained that the hardship on the sub - standard lots is the required 20 foot front yard setback and 10 foot rear yard setback. He said that because of the setback requirements there is little square footage left to construct a building. Mr. Laycock further replied that the present home consists of a 1,000 square foot to 1, 200 square foot, one story structure. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Laycock replied that the subject variance is the first application since the adoption of the amended General Plan. Commissioner Pers6n stated that there was no change in the General Plan that affected the 1.5 times buildable area in Corona del Mar. He addressed previously approved variances located in China Cove that increased the square footage of • the structure without affecting the garage to allow additional space. -17- COMMISSIONERS MAX OSyO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 R CALL INDEX Commissioner Winburn and Mr. Laycock concurred that square footage could be removed from the garage or from the house. Bill Ward, Senior Planner, explained that because of the setback that exists on the property and the orientation to First Avenue, the setbacks are unusual compared to the typical Corona del Mar lot. He said that in reviewing the application, staff looked at the building bulk and total gross floor area in relationship to the land area instead of the buildable area. Mr. Ward further explained that if the applicants reduce the project by 117 square feet, it would be within the ratio of a typical Corona del Mar lot. The Planning Commission considered a redesign of the project by requesting the applicants reduce the square footage by 117 square feet and reduce the height so as not to exceed the 24 foot basic height limit, and to bring back the modified plans to a future Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Merrill suggested that in order to correct the problem of two parallel lots that were cut up into three small lots, the lots should be reassembled. He suggested • that the property owner contact the adjacent neighbors and come back to the Planning Commission with two units that fit the neighborhood rather than crowd a house on a sub- standard lot. Substitute Substitute motion was made to continue Variance No. 1152 Motion * to the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting so as to allow the applicant time to come back with revised plans. Chairman Pomeroy suggested that the applicant come back with plans that would comply with Exhibit "B" for further review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Persdn stated that he would support the substitute motion without prejudice of what action may be taken by the Planning Commission in three weeks. Chairman Pomeroy pointed out that to encourage the removal of old structures on sub - standard lots throughout the City, the Planning Commission needs to recognize the unique areas of the City. Ayes * * * * * * Motion was voted on to continue Variance No. 1152 to the No * June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. -18- COMMISSIONERS CALL MINUTES May 18, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH General Plan Amendment 89- 1(G)(Continued Public Hearin) Request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to establish a precise alignment for the connection of Mesa Drive to Birch Street in Santa Ana Heights, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Amendment No. 676 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan so as to establish a precise alignment for the connection of Mesa Drive to Birch Street. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Don Webb, City Engineer, moved to the exhibit area that displayed four color -coded street alignments. He explained that Alignment No. 1 affects the front nine holes and driving range of the Newport Beach Golf Course. Mr. Webb explained that the Planning Commission gave staff direction at the March 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting when Amendment No. 646 was approved, to come up with an alignment that went through the golf course and missed five residential houses on Mesa Drive between Acacia Street and Birch Street. Mr. Webb stated that an alignment could be added between Alignment No. 1 and Alignment No. 2; however, he said that staff tried to create an envelope that would miss all five houses on Mesa Drive and another that would make the most direct route. Mr. Webb explained that Alignment No. 1 would impact Hole No. 4 which is the second longest hole in the 18 hole golf course, Hole No. 5, and a portion of Hole No. 6, and he described what the affect would be to the length of the holes if the golf course was redesigned. Chairman Pomeroy asked what distance Alignment No. 1 would extend beyond Alignment No. 2, and not cause an alteration to the golf course? Mr. Webb explained that the slope area on the golf course would require a 15 foot to 20 foot retaining wall, and he commented that the curve along Mesa Drive may enter into a small section of Alignment No. 2. • In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy with respect to the houses that would be affected by the foregoing Alignment, Mr. Webb replied that two houses on Mesa Drive are currently owned by the County, and the -19- INDEX Item No.7 GPA89 -1(G) A6 76 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 'coo q May 18, 1989 90 y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX County is currently negotiating with the property owner to purchase a third house. Commissioner Winburn and Mr. Webb discussed the Planning Commission's original request to follow through with an alignment into the golf course as opposed to an alignment with a reverse curve. Mr. Webb explained that staff was under the impression that an alignment to miss five houses on Mesa Drive could be accomplished and also connect Mesa Drive at Birch Street. Mr. Stephen Lane, partner of the Newport Beach Golf Course, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy with respect to the slope and the golf course, Mr. Lane explained that the slope area with retaining wall would not interfere with the golf course and would be an acceptable plan. Commissioner Edwards referred to the Environmental Document, and he asked if the housing takes would be • determined at a later analysis? Mr. Webb replied that the final analysis will be determined in the design process and that will establish the number of takes. He said that what was estimated in the Environmental Document was an approximation based on the best information available. Mr. Webb further replied that the revised Alignment between No. 1 and No. 2 would be more expensive than Alignment No. 2 inasmuch as there would be more landfill, the construction of the retaining wall, and at least two more houses on Mesa Drive would be taken. Mr. Webb agreed that there would be at least five houses taken under revised Alignment No. 1. Commissioner Debay asked if the road alignment selected by the City would be dropped if Santa Ana Heights was not annexed into the City of Newport Beach? Mr. Webb replied that the County would reevaluate the alignments to determine if the County wanted to proceed with Alignment No. 4 or one of the other alignments. Commissioner Di Sano emphasized that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to select the best alignment from a planning standpoint, not so much the cost of the alignment. He stated that the residents and the long term affect of the traffic flow in the area are primary • considerations. Commissioner Di Sano stated that the alignment selected by the City informs the residents that if the area is annexed by the City that the selected alignment is the way the traffic will flow, and if the area 20 . COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROC CALL INDEX is not annexed and stays in the County then the County may select any one of the other alignments. Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that y 7 The Irvine Company supports the implementation of the City and County Master Plans of Arterial Highways. However, if there is a taking of property, The Irvine Company would expect fair market compensation for the underlying fee interest in the property taken as well as any leasehold value, including potential loss revenue. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the amount of property taken from The Irvine Company if Alignments No. 1 or No. 2 would be selected, Mr. Dmohowski replied that the estimated value of the take would need to be determined under whatever condemnation proceedings that the County would enter into with the project. Mr. Dmohowski concurred with Commissioner Edwards' comment that The Irvine Company's property interest is the golf course's front 9 holes and the back 9 holes is County • property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Webb replied that Alignment No. 1 takes approximately 1.3 acres of the golf course. Mr. Robert Hopkins, an attorney representing the Mullen family and several property owners on Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hopkins stated that in his opinion the Planning Commission's responsibility is to put the human factors between the engineering mind and the mind of the residents and users, and he addressed the existing mixed uses in the area. In response to staff's comments of April 20, 1989, he stated that if the area would be rezoned it would violate the provision of the airport settlement agreement with respect to the adoption of zoning or land use designations that are inconsistent with the County. Mr. Hopkins addressed the project objectives and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as stated in the April 20, 1989, Planning Commission staff report, and he commented that to take five homes is not upgrading a residential neighborhood. He stated that one purpose of the citizen committees that were formed when the County was adopting the Specific Plan, was to accommodate the residents who had a desire to have their property remain residential. -21- COMMISSIONERS P9 �y APO yO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hopkins stated that the EIR is inadequate to support the adoption of Alignment No. 1, inasmuch as there is not enough information pertaining to the Newport Beach Golf Course with respect to cost, slope, and fair market value. Mr. Hopkins addressed the funds available from the Redevelopment Agency that are dedicated to the Santa Ana Heights area, and the lease agreement between The Irvine Company and the operators of the golf course with respect to the distribution of funds from condemnation revenue. Mr. Hopkins stated that he was informed that a piece of property owned by Mr. Jack Mullans had been purchased by the County for sound attenuation and resale, and not for a right -of -way as the County purchase assurance had indicated. Mr. Hopkins concluded that the Specific Plan permits 960,000 square feet of commercial use and after rezoning an additional 40,000 square feet would be added, totalling 1 million square feet. Discussion ensued between Mr. Hopkins and Chairman Pomeroy regarding the proposed alignments. Mr. Hopkins stated that he prefers alignments that follow the initial Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Hopkins and Commissioner Pers6n discussed comments that Mr. Hopkins previously made concerning compensation to the golf course operators. Mr. Hopkins indicated that the closest resemblance to the County's plan is Alignment No. 4. Discussion ensued between Mr. Hopkins and Commissioner Edwards with respect to Mr. Hopkins' comments regarding the Airport Settlement Agreement. Mr. Jack Mullan, 2031 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He commented that Mr. Hopkins' statements were not an individual's exact opinion. Mr. Mullan distributed copies of letters that he had previously written to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mullan commented that to take an individual's property is playing with human lives. He referred to previous comments made by staff, and he said that there will not be compensation available for the people who have not signed up for purchase assurance until construction of the roadway begins. Mr. Mullan addressed the loss of property values if the road is • proposed to be built through an owner's property sometime in the future. In reference to Alignment No. 2, Mr. Mullan stated that there are residents who want to remain in the community who will be wiped out, and there are residents _22_ COMMISSIONERS CALL • MINUTES May 18, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH who will benefit by selling their property for a quick profit. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Mullan replied that he would not oppose a modified Alignment No. 1. He addressed the concerns of the golf course operators, and he said that the. roadway should be considered a service road through the residential area. He further replied that ABCOM members oppose Alignment No. 1 because it would take some of their property. Mr. Bob Travers, 23901 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concerns that a proposal to modify Alignment No. 1 was not submitted by staff subsequent to the April 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the Planning Commission requested only that staff and the operators of the golf course discuss the impact that Alignment No. 1 would have on the golf course. In response to concerns expressed by Mr. Travers with respect to discussions between the County and the City, Mr. Webb explained that the County and the City have worked together to examine the four alternatives from the standpoint of the best traffic service of the business park as well as the circulation system but the County nor the City has advised the other what to do. Mr. Travers stated for the record, that he believed there was a conspiracy between the County and the City inasmuch as an option to Alignment No. 1 or No. 2 had not been submitted for consideration. Assistant City Attorney Carol Korade stated for the record that there has been no conspiracy between the City and the County that would affect the subject project. Mr. Fred Peterson, 20361 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He described from the exhibit area that the proposed traffic from the intersection of Mesa Drive and Irvine Avenue could be alleviated if Birch Street would be built through to University Drive at Irvine Avenue where the traffic flow would circulate from University Drive and from Irvine Avenue. Mr. Peterson explained that the County is purchasing a number of Anniversary Homes. Mr. Bill Warren, 20412 Birch Street and 20402 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He suggested that property owners on Birch Street could purchase a piece of property on Cypress Street, move the house onto the site, and still put money in the bank. Mr. Warren explained that Cypress Street is zoned residential equistrian as part of the compromise with the County. Mr. -23- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y�G t�9NFy9 y v�msg May 18, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Warren indicated that he would support the alignment that would be the best for all of the property owners. He stated that a Birch Street alignment with University Drive would be ideal. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Warren replied that Alignment No. 2 would be the most practical, and he explained the hazards on Mesa Drive. Mrs. Pat Cox, 2612 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to support Alignment No. 4. Mrs. Cox stated that several of the property owners who are supporting Alignment No. 2 do not reside in the area or they intend to leave the area. She stated that the compromise plan that the residents agreed to with the County closely resembles Alignment No. 4, and that plan includes a cul- de -sac at the lower end of Birch Street. She explained that the residents support the plan because it is the only one that fulfills the Master Plan and protects the residents who wish to remain in Santa Ana Heights. Mrs. Cox presented a petition consisting of signatures from Mesa Drive residents that she contacted, and she commented that she proposed to complete the signed petition at a later date. Mrs. Cox commented that she definitely is opposed to Alignment No. 2. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the reason the City did not recognize the compromise plan was because of the Alignment's circulation system. Mrs. Mary Davis, 1971 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that inasmuch as her property is located at the corner of Mesa Drive and Acacia Street that Alignment No. 4 would take her property, that she supports the business park, and that she intends to remain in the area. Mrs. Davis supported Commissioner Di Sano's foregoing statements regarding the Planning Commission's responsibility to good planning. Mrs. Davis addressed individual property owners residing on Mesa Drive and adjoining properties that she disagreed with concerning zoning. Mrs. Betty Knox, 20402 Acacia Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of Alignment No. 2. Mrs. Knox stated that they have been property owners for 40 years, and she addressed affects that the airport has had on the property owners since 1962. Mrs. Knox requested that an alignment be determined soon so the property owners may make plans for their future. Mrs. Mary Towersey, 20411 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Towersey commented that the -24- . COMMISSIONERS OE - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROL CALL INDEX rural neighborhood of Santa Ana Heights is unique. She stated that it will be difficult to market the property, and she commented that she agreed with the majority of the residents that it is time to select an alignment. Mrs. Towersey recommended the following condition on any alignment that is implemented: "That the County go ahead and purchase the affected properties at a replacement value within six months of their adoption of a plan. Allow any property owner who wishes to remain to lease their property back until the road is built at a reasonable price." She explained that the condition would be a welcome compromise to everyone. Mr. Fred Peterson reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to the foregoing condition with respect to the County leasing back property to the property owner. Mr. Peterson stated that it would be acceptable to lease from the County only if an affordable amount could be agreed to between the interested parties. . Mrs. Alice Rodriquez, 20462 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of Alignment No. 2. Mrs. Rodriquez addressed the compromises that have been made and the length of time that has been taken to make a final decision to approve an alignment. She stated that she would support any good circulation plan that will carry traffic, and that would be acceptable to the many property owners who want to remain in the area. Mr. Harvey Shaw, property owner at the corner of Orchard Drive and Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of Alignment No. 2. As a member of the Adhoc committee, Mr. Shaw addressed the length of time it took to complete the Plan, and he stated that the City should have provided more input when the Specific Plan was drafted by the County inasmuch as the residents would have had more knowledge of the roadway system. Mr. Shaw stated that he has lived in the area since 1943. Mrs. Loraine Warren, 20412 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of Alignment No. 2, and she addressed concerns with respect to the traffic and airport. Mrs. Warren stated that they had an opportunity to sell their property at a profit, but their choice was to remain in the area of the business park. She requested . that a final decision be made as soon as possible. -25- COMMISSIONERS . %.p •o �c^OO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 R CALL INDEX Mrs. Urla Persson, 20432 Cypress Street and a resident for 30 years, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of Alignment No. 2. n There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano with respect to proposed Alignments No. 1, Amended Alignment No. 1, and No. 2, Mr. Webb replied that the distance between a retaining wall and the ground level of the golf course would be approximately 20 feet to 25 .feet; that the estimated cost of Amended Alignment No. 1 would be $10 million; and no alignment would be selected unless it could be posted at 35 mph. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb concurred that the road construction would be funded through the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Pomeroy explained the redevelopment fund process. �n * Motion was made to recommend to City Council, the adoption of General Plan Amendment 89 -1(G) and Amendment No. 676, to establish Alignment No. 2 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Di Sano addressed testimony during the public hearing that was made by concerned property owners, the Planning Commission's responsibility to look at the circulation element and the Santa Ana Heights plan as it relates to a road alignment, accidents on poorly designed roads, and what is best for the residents and persons residing adjacent to the City. Commissioner Di Sano commented that the costs for Alignment No. 1 are prohibitive. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the safety factor of Alignment No. 2, the taking of homes from residents who would prefer to remain in the area, the consideration of the residents who will remain in the area, and the business park. Commissioner Pers6n inquired if there is a method to ask the County to move forward with the purchase of the lots and provide for a lease back? Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, replied that no action could be taken by the Planning Commission beyond advisory. He suggested that the issue could be included in the Specific Area Plan in the event the area would be annexed to the City. • Commissioner Di Sano agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Webb explained that the most effective method would be for the Planning Commission to express the concern to the City Council, and the City Council convey the concern to the -26- COMMISSIONERS F F ymc 9o9��yP yy � - �yo�yffa�,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROC -CALL INDEX County, and request that the County take action as soon as possible. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve General Plan Motion * Amendment 89 -1(G) and Amendment No. 676, to move Alignment No. 1 adjacent to Alignment No. 2 to preserve to the highest degree the property located on Mesa Drive and preserve the golf course hole alignment as it is with the retaining wall concept. Chairman Pomeroy explained that the primary reason the issue has been delayed is because the Planning Commission believed that a compromise could be reached by going down into the golf course. Commissioner Edwards supported the substitute motion. He stated that he did not believe a decision could be made in a vacuum where somehow the cost of industry has to be weighed against human costs. He explained that amended Alignment No. 1 comes the closest taking into account the human costs of the residents who have been confronting the problem for a long period of time, and who have requested that a final decision be made soon. Commissioner Edwards addressed the residents' concerns with respect to the County, and he suggested that the Planning Commission assist the residents by recommending Commissioner Pers6n's foregoing condition to the City Council stating that a repurchase be initiated within six months and that there be a leaseback within a reasonable period of time at a reasonable value. Commissioner Pers6n supported the substitute motion. He explained that amended Alignment No. 1 does what the Planning Commission originally requested as opposed to a double switchback curve which cuts further into the golf course. Commissioner Pers6n stated that amended Alignment No. 1 accomplishes good planning, and it affects the human element. Commissioner Winburn stated that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council two years ago that the Planning Commission would prefer an alignment through the golf course to a certain extent whereby one lot would be taken at the corner of Birch Street and Mesa Drive; however, she added that it may not have been feasible thinking at the time. Commissioner Winburn explained that Alignment No. 1 would not be acceptable, and amended Alignment No. 1 has now been suggested which is what the • Planning Commission first recommended two years ago according to the plans. Commissioner Winburn acknowledged the work that the City and County have done, and she said -27- COMMISSIONERS 9�ZZ�yP'9� 9Z ZOtZ `C OHO dh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 18, 1989 ROL CALL INDEX that she would support the original motion which would be to implement Alignment No. 2. Substitute motion was voted on to approve General Plan Amendment 89 -1(G) and Amendment No. 676, to adopt an .i alignment that would move Alignment No. 1 over against * * * * Alignment No. 2, the golf course would be preserved, and Ayes * a retaining wall would be constructed to preserve the golf Noes * * course holes. MOTION CARRIED. Granny Unit Ordinance Discussion Request to consider possible revisions to Chapter 20.78 of Item the Newport Beach Municipal Code related to Granny Units. D -1 Motion was made to set this matter for public hearing on Granny Unit Motion * July 6, 1989, and to direct staff to prepare an amendment to Chapter 20.78 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code • pertaining to the Granny Unit Ordinance as it relates to increasing the minimum lot square footage and not as it relates to restriction of occupancy. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that she had been contacted,to request an amendment to the Granny Unit Ordinance that would change Section 20.78.025(G) of the Municipal Code that currently provides that "the primary residence shall be occupied by the legal owner of the property ", to "owner occupancy of either the primary residence or the granny unit is required prior to the issuance of building permits." Ms. Korade addressed the Planning Commission's concerns with respect to a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet. She stated that increasing the minimum lot size to 5,500 square feet in order to establish a granny unit was "reasonable ", but to increase the minimum lot size beyond 5,500 square feet would significantly decrease the number of properties in the City that could provide granny units. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that staff would prepare a study pertaining to the number of lots over 5,500 square feet in increments of 500 square feet, that would be removed from the available number of lots that could accommodate granny units. . -28- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ydG���9o99ti�gS May 18, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Edwards indicated that he had concerns with respect to banking institutions lending money to finance granny units on the basis of deed restrictions. Motion was voted on to set a public hearing for July 6, 1989, to consider possible revisions to Chapter 20.78 of All Ates the Granny Unit Ordinance. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 p.m. Adjournmen+ GARY DI SANO, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -29-