Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/1990COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING s d. d PLACE: City Council Chambers °� ". �s TIME: 7:30 P.M. �o�� q� DATE: May 24, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Present Absent Motion ont *1* 1* 1* 1* * I Commissioner Debay was absent s s s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney * i s William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of May 10. 1990: * I * I * I * I * I I Motion was made and voted on to approve the May 10, 1990, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. * s s s Public Comments: No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items: :ss Posting of the Agenda: James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 18, 1990, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 5, • Use Permit No. 3382, Dana L. Carl, applicant, property located at 361 Hospital Road, regarding the establishment of a permanent automobile washing and detailing facility, be continued to the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting MINUTES INDEX Minutes of 5 -10 -90 Public Cnmments Posting of the Agenda Request COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH inasmuch as staff has requested that the applicant provide additional information regarding the proposed facility. He further recommended that Item No. 6, General Plan Amendment No. 89 -2(C), Use Permit No. 3380, Site Plan Review No. 59, and Resubdivision No. 929, Owen Minney, applicant, regarding the request to allow commercial /residential mixed use at 447 North Newport Boulevard, be continued to the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting as suggested by staff and the applicant. Notion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 5 and No. Ayes * 6 as stated to the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Absent * MOTION CARRIED. s :s M I 61 e ! s Request to resubdivide an existing lot and a portion of a second lot into a single parcel of land for a two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 • District. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 12 and Lot 13, Block 35, Newport Beach, located at 120 36th Street, on the southeasterly side of 36th Street, between West Balboa Boulevard and Seashore Drive, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: The Olson Company, Seal Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Laguna Hills The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Philip Nielsen, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he 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. INDEX Item No.1 R927 Approved COMMISSIONERS AA tPd,d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL 111111 1 INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. Ayes * * * * 927 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Absent * 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 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 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 to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall 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. -3- COMMISSIONERS 0 • May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. That the parkway drainage box located in the 36th Street parkway be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk unless it can be shown that the parkway box is functional. All work performed within the public right- of -way shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole. 9. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 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. Resubdivision No. 928 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide portions of two lots into a single. parcel of land for a two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 9 and 10, Block J, Seashore Colony, located at 7003 Seashore Drive, on the southwesterly side of Seashore Drive, between Highland Street and Grant Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Harbor Development, Newport Beach 0 INDEX Item No.2 R928. Approved COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes Absent May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OWNER: Jon Miller, Huntington Beach ENGINEER: Duca- McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jon Miller, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he 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 was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. * 928 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. " MOTION CARRIED. 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. 0 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. -5- INDEX COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX 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 to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall 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. When the existing water service is modified to provide separate services, above ground piping and faucets located in the public right -of- way shall be removed. 5. That the existing rolled curb depression shall be removed and replaced with rolled curb to match existing along Seashore Drive frontage and that sidewalk be constructed along the Seashore Drive frontage with no steps in the Seashore Drive right -of -way. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid. 9. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole. 10. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 11. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. • -6- COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 12. 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. 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: R -1 -13 APPLICANTS: Mr. & Mrs. Yasui, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicants submitted the revised plans without discussing the issue with staff or without making revisions suggested by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 10, 1990. He explained that the revised plans indicated that the applicants lowered the wrought iron fence so as not to exceed a height of 3 feet with the exception of the entry gates and pilasters at the two driveways and pedestrian access points. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill and Commissioner Glover, Mr. Laycock stated that the proposed plans met the provisions of the Zoning Code with the exception of the gates and pilasters. The Public Works Department is also • requesting to reduce the fence to 30 inches so as to provide a -7- INDEX Item No.3 Mod. No.. 3688 Denied COMMISSIONERS 1W 'din to d. d _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX sight distance at the intersection of Cameo Shores Road and Hampden Road. Mr. Laycock explained that the modification is still required on the basis of the applicants' request to maintain the posts and gates at the driveways that exceed the permitted height of 3 feet in the required 15 foot front yard setbacks. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that if the improvements do not exceed a height of 3 feet, a Building Permit is not required. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Laycock concurred that reducing the fence to a height of 30 inches to provide the sight line at the intersection could not be imposed if the entire fence and gates maintained a height of 3 feet or less. Rich Edmonton, Traffic Engineer, .further replied that the Public Works Department has requested that the wrought iron fencing not exceed 30 inches in height at the intersection of the two streets. Chairman Pomeroy commented that the existing tree at the curb also impacts the intersection. • No one appeared before the Planning Commission to represent the applicant. Mr. Alan Katz, 4627 Tremont Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated his opposition to the subject modification on the basis that the improvements should comply with the zoning requirements inasmuch as the request could set a precedent in the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Katz explained that there is an existing fence on the required 15 foot front yard setback. Mr. Frank Clendenen, 4639 Tremont Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he opposed the proposed 6 foot high gates and pilasters on the basis that the improvements would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Charles Cannon, 4633 Tremont Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he opposed the project on the basis that the proposal would set a precedent in Cameo Shores, and the fence is not aesthetically pleasing. • -8- COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes Absent • • May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Merrill concluded that the Planning Commission gave the applicants the opportunity to come back with a reasonable revised plan, and the applicants constructed the improvements without a Building Permit. Motion was made to deny Modification No. 3688 subject to the findings in Exhibit 'B ". Commissioner Glover supported the motion on the basis that the Planning Commission gave the applicants an opportunity to come back with a revised plan that would blend with the neighborhood. Chairman Pomeroy supported the motion on the basis that the applicants were given an opportunity to revise the plans. Motion was made and voted on to deny Modification No. 3688 subject to the findings in Exhibit 'B ". Fin in 1. That the Planning Commission determined that in this case, the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicants request. would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the approval of the proposed fence encroachment could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests which could be detrimental to the neighborhood. 3. That there is no justification for allowing the proposed encroachment, since adequate space exists within the buildable area of the site for design alternatives to accommodate the needs of the applicant. 4. That structures on sites adjoining the subject property generally maintain the required 15 foot front yard setback. 5. That the proposed construction could obstruct sight distance at the intersection of Cameo Shores Road and Hampden Road. 0 INDEX 0 0 COMMISSIONERS o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES INDEX 6. That several neighboring property owners are opposed to the as -built development. 7. That the fence encroachment is detrimental to the existing streetscape of the subject tract and detracts from the openness of the entrance to the residential neighborhood. 8. That the 15 foot encroachment into the required 15 foot front yard setback on both street property lines are not minor in nature. Planning Commission Review No. 12 (Continued Discussion) Item No.4 Request to review 3 chimneys which exceed the 24 foot basic height limit in the R -1 District and which exceed the minimum PC, Review No. 12 height required by the Uniform Building Code. Approved 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 James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested direction from the Planning Commission to amend the zoning regulations permitting an additional 12 inches to chimneys which would allow the installation of spark arresters and decorative chimney caps on top of the chimneys. Mr. Hewicker indicated that staff has no objection with respect to the subject chimneys. He explained that the Uniform Building Code requires that the chimney be a minimum of 2 feet above the roof at a distance of 10 feet from the opening of the chimney. He indicated that an additional 12 inches to the chimneys would be aesthetically pleasing inasmuch as spark arresters are generally sheet metal and wire, and in order to make said spark arresters more appealing, a device is installed around the arresters. -10- COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Chairman Pomeroy concurred with the request inasmuch as it is difficult to find an aesthetically pleasing spark arrester. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the two chimneys that consist of metal and wood and the third masonry chimney, Mr. Hewicker stated that the chimneys met the required height limit; however, because the contractor installed a chimney cap to the subject chimneys the height limit exceeded the zoning regulations. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the subject chimneys should comply with the required height limit regardless of the added accessories. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the view of Chimney No. 1 from the public park on Ocean Boulevard, Mr. Hewicker explained the. requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the required location of the chimney to the adjoining roof's surface. Mr. Hewicker stated that the 9 inches that Chimney No. 1 is above the 2 feet consists of the decorative chimney cap and the spark arrester. • Chairman Pomeroy addressed his concerns with respect to the overall bulk of chimney stacks wherein he suggested that a maximum chimney width be considered in the Ordinance. Commissioner Merrill commented that the width of chimneys often dictate the height of chimneys. Mr. Tony Valentine, General Building Contractor, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Commissioner Merrill asked why spark arresters were not installed on Chimney No. 3. Mr. Valentine explained that spark arresters are required on metal fireplaces and not on masonry fireplaces. Discussion ensued between Mr. Valentine and Commissioner Merrill regarding the size of decorative chimney caps and arresters. Motion Motion was made to approve Planning Commission Review No. 12 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. Commissioner PersGn directed staff to prepare revised language to the Zoning Code with respect to increasing the chimney height so as to allow spark arresters and decorative chimney caps. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion reluctantly wherein he referred to previous problems that have occurred between the • -11- COMMISSIONERS 1W�d� �. ��d W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES RdWA LL INDEX applicants and the neighbors in China Cove. Commissioner Pers6n concurred. Ayes * * Motion was voted on to approve Planning Commission Review Absent No. 12. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the existing spark arresters and screening metal flashings add to the function of the chimneys as well as protecting the chimneys from the elements. 2. That the spark arresters and screening metal flashings do not adversely intrude on views, light, or air, from adjoining residential properties or the City owned view park overlooking the subject property. Conditions 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with • the approved elevations and dimensions. 2. That the chimney caps (screening metal flashings) shall conform with the City's Building Code. Use Permit No. 3382 (Public Hearing) Item No.s Request to permit the establishment of a permanent automobile UP3382 washing and detailing facility for the staff and physicians of the Hoag Memorial Hospital and the Lido Medical Center. Said cont ' d to facility will be located within the surface parking area in the 6 -7 -90 northeasterly comer of the Lido Medical Center property, located within the A -P District. LOCATION: Record of Survey 84 -20 (Resubdivision No. 214) located at 361 Hospital Road, on the northeasterly comer of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, across from Hoag Hospital. ZONE: A -P • APPLICANT: Dana L. Carl, Newport Beach -12- COMMISSIONERS — �W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES RdWALL INDEX OWNER: Newport Lido Medical Center, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that this item be continued to the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting so as to allow the applicant time to provide additional information as requested by staff. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3382 Ayes, * * * * * to the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent CARRIED. * s * A General Plan Amendment No 89- 2(C)(Continued Public Item No.6 Hearing) GPA 89 -2C Request to allow commercial /residential mixed use in the "island" • area between North Newport Boulevard and Newport Boulevard UP3380 in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area. It is also proposed to amend the boundaries of the Old Newport SPR 59 Boulevard Specific Plan Area to delete areas designated for 8929 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. 6 -7 -90 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. Use Permit No. 3380 (Continued 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 -13- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES RdWALL I I INDEX C. Site Plan Review No. 59 (Continued Public Hearing) 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. AND D. Resubdivision No. 929 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard into a single parcel of land for mixed use condominium purposes so as to create one office condominium and three residential condominium units. 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 James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that this item be continued to the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue General Plan Ayes * Amendment No. 89 -2(C), Use Permit No. 3380, Site Plan Review . Absent No. 59, and Resubdivision No. 929 to the June 7, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. s s x • -14- COMMISSIONERS • • May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A. Use Permit No. 3379 (Public Hearing) Request to allow a proposed mixed use residential /commercial structure to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District; to allow commercial development of the site which maintains a Floor Area Ratio which is less than 0.25; and to allow a general office use which must be in conjunction with an Incentive Use occupying at least 40% of the site; and the acceptance of an environmental document. B. Site Plan Review No. 58 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a mixed use residential /commercial development containing general office use on the ground floor and three dwelling units on the second and third floors on property located in the 'Recreational and Marine Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. W1113 C. Resubdivision No. 924 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for mixed use condominium purposes so as to create one office condominium and three residential condominium units. LOCATION: Lot 13, Block 220, Section A, Newport Beach, and property bayward of Lot 13, to the U.S. Government bulkhead line, located at 227 20th Street, on the westerly side of 20th Street, on the Rhine Channel, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Pigneri Development, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -15- INDEX Item No.7 UP3379 SPR 58 R924 Approved COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX RdM Surveying Inc., Costa Mesa Commissioner Per;6n stepped down from the dais because of a potential conflict of interest. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the addendum to the staff report regarding a park dedication fee required for the proposed dwelling units. Mr. Hewicker indicated that staff has concerns regarding the 35 foot height of the proposed project, and the public visual open space that is being provided by the architect in exchange for exceeding the height limit. Mr. Hewicker calculated that a portion of the third floor and the roof deck above the third floor consists of 30,833 cubic feet of volume of building above the height limit, and the cubic volume of open space being provided on the front and side portions of the project, taking into consideration the proposed setbacks, consists of 15,860 cubic feet, excluding the open space between the structures on the second and third floors and the open space that is being provided on the rear area of the site. He stated that the bulk above the height limit is not providing an adequate return of open space. Mr. Hewicker indicated his concern regarding the residential /commercial mixed use concept and a possible conflict between the boat charter operation and the residential property owners. He addressed the boat charter service that currently exists on the site, and the bus that will be used to provide a service for persons chartering the boats. He indicated that there is not a designated area on the proposed plan to park the bus or where the bus can be loaded and unloaded except for an area on 20th Street. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with respect to mixed use on the bay, Mr. Hewicker explained that previously approved mixed uses on the bay have not incorporated individual condominium residential and commercial property owners. He further explained the comparison of previously approved use permits for commercial and residential uses with the subject use permit. Commissioner Glover indicated that she supported mixed commercial and residential use wherein she said that there will always be a conflict between residential and commercial uses, and that tenants understand there will be • possible controversy. -16- COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Commissioner Di Sano addressed a previously approved use permit on the Lancer Landing site, located on West Coast Highway, that requires boat charters to come back to the City for approval. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Charles Pigneri, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pigneri indicated that he intends to reside in one of the residential condominiums, he will own a second residential condominium unit, the third residential condominium will be sold, and he will control the commercial space and the docks. Mr. Pigneri stated that his request to amend the General Plan Amendment in November, 1989, so as to rezone the subject property to the MFR District would have allowed him to construct 10 residential condominium units had be decided to execute the request. Mr. Pigneri stated that the MFR District would have allowed him to construct 17,500 square feet of floor area, and a building height of 32 feet whereas the proposed project consists of 12,000 square feet and the building height on the third floor is 31 feet 6 inches with the remaining 42 inches consisting of open railings around the roof decks. He further indicated that the MFR District would permit him to maximize the entire property and the open space that is proposed would not be required. Mr. Pigneri concluded that he would rezone the property to the MFR District, and develop and sell the 10 condominium units if the proposed project is not approved. Mr. Hewicker indicated that there is no assurance that the City would approve the applicant's request to rezone the property to the MFR District. Mr. Pigneri stated that if the amendment would not be approved, he would be allowed to construct 8 condominium units based on 1,600 square feet of lot area per unit in the C -1 District and an increased building height would be permitted. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill with regard to the number of units that could be considered in the Site Plan Review, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to reduce the number of requested units if the applicant requested 8 condominium units as he previously stated. Mr. Pigneri further responded that the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3213 which • included a request to permit the construction of a 35 unit bed 17- COMMISSIONERS 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL L INDEX and breakfast facility on the subject property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Pigneri stated that the building height of the apartments across 20th Street from the subject property are approximately 30 to 35 feet in height. Mr. Pigneri opposed Condition No. 15, Resubdivision No. 924 in Exhibit "A" regarding the 5 foot public access easement along the westerly side property line on the basis that he would be required to set back the proposed office space on the first floor 5 feet, and one foot for the residential use above the first floor. Mr. Pigneri opposed Condition No. 12, Resubdivision No. 924 in Exhibit W regarding the request to reconstruct the median island on West Balboa Boulevard at 20th Street so as to provide an eastbound left turn lane. Rich Edmonton, Traffic Engineer, explained that the City is concerned with the maneuverability of the bus that is proposed for the boat charter's use, and the size of the project also was considered. Mr. Pigneri addressed the impact of traffic at the 7 -11 Convenience Store on 20tb Street, and the traffic congestion that would be created by the left tam lane. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Pigneri stated that the commercial use would consist of his personal office, the boat charter business, and a business or office that would support marine - related uses. Mr. Pigneri further responded that the boat charter business has been operating from the subject site for the past two years; it has been approved by the Marine Department and the Coast Guard; the operating hours usually start at 5:00 p.m.; the length of the boat is 74 feet; the average passenger count is 75 person and the bus is licensed for 80 passengers; the bus will enter into the 24 foot wide driveway which consists of the charter's 3 parking spaces, the applicant's office space requirement of 2 parking spaces, and an additional parking space whereby the 6 parking spaces measure 54 feet and the bus measures 40 feet; the bus will not interfere with the residential parking spaces; and he will monitor the bus charter service's operating hours. Mr. Tim Eksted, owner of California Yacht Charters, 227 - 20th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Eksted addressed the expressed concern regarding the all night student -18- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX charters wherein he suggested that a curfew should be initiated for 12:00 midnight on all charters with the exception of the charters located at commercial locations. Mr. Eksted stated that he notifies the Business License Department regarding variations in his operating hours which have been approved from 8:00 am. to 12:00 midnight on weekends and 11:00 p.m. on week nights. Mr. Eksted reviewed the operation of his boat charter business, and he said the bus was purchased to support the operation and to alleviate potential parking problems in the area. Mr. Eksted stated that the bus will be used as a shuttle between Costa Mesa and the subject site. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Eksted explained from the site plan on display, the 6 foot wide sidewalk that the passengers will use between the bulkhead and the parking lot. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Eksted discussed the locations that could be used to park the bus while the passengers are on the charter boat. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding a condition that would permit the charter boat, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that a charter boat service is a permitted use at the subject site. Mr. Hewicker explained that the charter boat service has a Commercial Harbor Permit from the Marine Department to operate a charter service from the subject location and as long as he adheres to the conditions of the Harbor Permit, there is no requirement that the Planning Department could add to require a use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that it is feasible that a condition could be added that would require a use permit in the event the existing charter boat service would cease operation at the subject site. In response to concerns expressed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding the requirement to come back to the Planning Commission for a use permit so as to review the operational characteristics of the charter boat service inasmuch as it would be adjacent to a residential development, Ms. Flory indicated that she was not certain what affect the proposed project will have on the existing Harbor Permit. Commissioner Di Sano, Chairman Pomeroy, and Mr. Hewicker discussed the close proximity of mixed marine- related uses with the existing residential neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Pigneri replied that he did not object to Condition No. 20, Resubdivision No. 924, regarding the • _19_ COMMISSIONERS • • May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH park dedication fee as suggested in the addendum to the staff report. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the increased building height that would result in more public visual open space, Mr. Hewicker suggested a larger cut- off at the intersection of the public walk and 20th Street, and he described from the site plan on display the distance between the bulkhead and the front of the building. Mr. Hewicker stated that the project is set back along the bulkhead, and a minimum distance on the street side of the property; however, he questioned if the proposed open space would be sufficient public visual open space to allow the project to exceed the height limit. He stated that the applicant has provided a sufficient amount of open space at the back of the building; however, he questioned if the visual open space from 20th Street or the setbacks along the water are adequate. He stated that a portion of the third floor and the roof decks exceed the height limit. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker explained that one -half of the third floor and all of the roof decks exceed the height limit. Discussion ensued between Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Pigneri, and staff regarding the ridge of the roof, the proposed railing on the roof deck, and where the height could be reduced on the project and where the open space could be increased. Mr. Pigneri and Mr. Hewicker discussed what affect an increase in open space would have on the required parking spaces. Mr. Pigneri and the Planning Commission discussed the creation of additional open space on the second and third floors, and the balcony on the first floor of the residential units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Pigneri responded that if the roof decks and railings would be removed, the project's height would be 31 feet instead of 35 feet. Ms. Flory referred to the foregoing concerns expressed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding the charter boat service, and she explained that there are provisions under the Commercial Harbor Permit that address the charter operation. She said that there is a provision stating that the application for the charter permit shall be denied if within the proceeding 90 day period the conditions of the prior permit have not been complied with by the applicant. She concluded that if the operational characteristics should change within 90 days that it would require a review to W13 INDEX COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX be assured that the permit is in compliance with the conditions of the permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano stated that the public visual open space provided justifies the approval of the increased building height, that the setback at the bulkhead could have been increased, and the open space at the rear of the project would appropriately serve the charter boat service. Commissioner Di Sano supported the concept of mixed commercial /residential uses in Cannery Village and he suggested conditions be considered regarding CC &R's and a charter boat operation on the property. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3379, Site Plan Review No. 58, and Resubdivision No. 924 with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", modify Condition No. 15 in Resubdivision No. 924, by deleting ".and that a 5 foot public access easement be granted to the City along the westerly property line between the proposed 6 foot wide bay front • easement and a point 6 feet inland from the bulkhead of the westerly property. ", and add Condition No. 20 regarding the park dedication fee. In reference to Condition No. 15, Mr. Edmonton explained that if there was a guarantee that the Coastal Commission would approve a straight bulkhead across the property to the west, the City would have no objection to the deletion of a portion of Condition of Approval No. 15; however, he said that if the City does not have the easement along the westerly side of the property and the Coastal Commission does not allow the bulkhead to be aligned, then there would not be a continuous public easement across the subject property and adjacent properties to the west. Commissioner Glover supported the motion with the exception that she would have approved Condition No. 15 as suggested by staff. She maintained that the mixed commercial /residential concept is good and the implication is that businesses and residents will have to learn to live together. Commissioner Glover stated that the mixed use will enhance the area, and the marine - related uses is an opportunity to retain the "Newport' look. -21- COMMISSIONERS 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES -R WALL INDEX Commissioner Edwards addressed his concerns regarding the bulk of the project, the project's height, the public visual open space, and he suggested that Use Permit No. 3379 be continued for further review. He supported the concept of the mixed use. Commissioner Merrill concurred that he had concerns regarding the height, and he suggested that the roof decks and the project's bulk be modified. Chairman Pomeroy suggested a reduction in the area at the back of the building and increasing the open space adjacent to the bulkhead, or to eliminate the decks which would reduce the height of the building by 42 inches. Chairman Pomeroy and Ms. Flory discussed a condition that could be added requiring CC &R's so as to resolve any conflict that could develop between the residential owners and the commercial users. Commissioner Edwards suggested Condition No. 21, Resubdivision No. 924, which would require the applicant to make provisions for a conflict resolution in the CC&R's. The • maker of the motion concurred with Condition No. 21. height be Chairman Pomeroy suggested that the 42 inch eliminated by removing the roof decks which would satisfy the concerns expressed regarding the project's bulk. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Pigneri agreed to remove the roof decks. The maker of the motion agreed to modify the motion as requested. The Planning Commission and staff discussed Condition No. 15, Resubdivision No. 924, regarding the easement and bulkhead, and the Coastal Commission's desire to construct a string line bulkhead in the Channel. Mr. Hewicker and Mr. Pigneri discussed the recommendation of an irrevocable offer to dedicate the bulkhead. Motion was voted on to approve the Environmental Document, Use Permit No. 3379, with the revision of Condition No. 2 so that the building does not exceed a height of 31 feet, 6 inches, and the addition of Condition No. 7 regarding the deletion of the roof decks, Site Plan Review No. 58, and Resubdivision No. 924, with the deletion of a portion of Condition No. 15 regarding a 5 foot public access easement along the westerly property line, • and adding Conditions No. 20 regarding the park dedication fee, _22_ COMMISSIONERS "P ���iY odd W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX and No. 21 regarding a conflict resolution in the CC&R's, subject Ayes * * * * to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION Absent CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the proposed design of the project will reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures: 1. An engineer's report on the adequacy of the existing bulkhead shall be prepared. The report shall include inspection and evaluation of all tie rods required for the proposed project. The engineer shall also evaluate potential loss of soil through the bulkhead wall as part of the report. 2. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. That adequate provisions be taken to insure that no debris, siltation or foreign material be permitted to enter the bay during demolition and construction. 4. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. -23- COMMISSIONERS 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX to 6 p.m. on Saturdays as outlined in Chapter 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That the finished floor elevation of the structure, except that area used for parking, be constructed at 6.27 feet above mean sea level as described in Chapter 20.63.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to m;nim;�e light spillage and glare from the commercial parking area to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 7. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 8. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the . Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought - resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. Mitigation Monitoring: 1. The Building Department shall review and accept all necessary reports and plans associated with Mitigation Measures No. 1 and 2 prior to grading or the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures No. 5 and 7 must comply with Building Department regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 shall be monitored by the Building Department Inspectors during the construction of the project. 2. The Planning Department shall review and approve the necessary plans associated with Mitigation Measures No. 6 and 8 prior to the issuance of building permits. • -24- COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 3. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department shall review and the Planning Department and the Public Works Department shall approve Mitigation Measure No. 7 prior to the issuance of building permits. B. Use Permit No. 3379. Findingso 1. That the development provides for both public physical and visual access to the bay. 2. That the increased height results in more public visual open space and views that would result from compliance with the basic height limit, since the project design includes increased setbacks adjacent to the street end and the Bay. 7. That the proposed commercial space constitutes a significant portion of the development. 8. That the proposed commercial development is large enough to accommodate viable businesses. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3379 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, 11111111 safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of -25- 3. The increased building height results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and • more appealing visual character of the area within the general theme of a marine environment. 4. The increased building height does not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 5. The increased height does not result in floor area exceeding that otherwise permitted. 6. That incentive uses are provided by the development which allow the establishment of general office and commercial uses. 7. That the proposed commercial space constitutes a significant portion of the development. 8. That the proposed commercial development is large enough to accommodate viable businesses. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3379 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, 11111111 safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of -25- COMMISSIONERS �� moo a�, 1, � �� �� o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 'MINUTES WALL INDEX .f persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and section. 2. That the building shall be no higher than 31 feet, 6 inches, subject to the provisions of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan in regards to the ground floor elevation and in accordance with the definitions contained in Section 20.87.205 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That incentive uses shall be provided if general commercial or office uses are provided on site. The split between incentive uses and uses which can be developed only upon the provision of incentive uses is 40% incentive • use and 60% use which requires incentive. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for the project, the applicant shall record a covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, agreeing to the provision of required incentive uses. 4. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 5. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 924 and Site Plan Review No. 58 shall be fulfilled. 7. That the roof decks and related railings shall be • eliminated from the approved plans. -26- COMMISSIONERS 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX B. Site Plan Review No. 58. Findings: 1. That the proposed site plan gives due regard to the aesthetic qualities of the harbor. 2. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 3. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 4. The development is sited and designed to maximize public views from the street end. 5. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on -site. 6. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 7. Residential development will meet City noise standards. 8. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that there will be a minimum of commercial /residential conflicts. 9. The development is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. 10. Mechanical equipment and trash enclosures are concealed from view. 11. That there are no archeological of historical resources on- site. 12. That the project is designed so as to be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. -27- COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and section, except as noted below. 2. That all mitigation measures, and conditions of approval for Use Permit No 3379 and Resubdivision No. 924 shall be fulfilled. 3. That one parking space be provided for each 250 sq.ft. of commercial or office development and 4 parking spaces be provided for each dwelling unit. 4. That the boat slips bayward of the site shall not be used as a commercial marina unless the required upland support facilities for parking and bath rooms are provided as required by City Council Harbor Permit policies. 5. The driveway entry shall be widened to provide a • minimum width of 24 feet and the trash enclosure shall be relocated or redesigned to conform to Std 110-L for sight distance. • 6. The second floor above required handicapped parking shall provide a minimum 8 foot 2 inch vertical clearance unless otherwise approved by the Building Director. 7. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. IQ INDEX COMMISSIONERS �n .4 .o - zC O� Y c� d, d c° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX D. Resubdivision No. 924 Findin 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 property within the proposed subdivision. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 4. 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 design of the subdivision. 5. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. The Parcel Map shall 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 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. • -29- COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 . MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 9. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 10. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map or prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. • -30- 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 deteriorated sidewalk and deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and drive apron shall be reconstructed along the 20th Street frontage and that the fire hydrant be relocated if it is not at least five feet from the top of "X" on the proposed drive apron. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 7. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. . 8. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 10. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map or prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. • -30- COMMISSIONERS 'd .4 �d,d �o � qa .� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES R ALL INDEX 11. That a condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay side of the property be made by a civil or structural engineer, and that the bulkhead be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department. The report shall include inspection and evaluation of all the tie rods required for the proposed project. The engineer shall evaluate potential loss of soil through the bulkhead wall as part of the report. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). 12. That the median island on West Balboa Boulevard at 20th Street be reconstructed to provide an eastbound left turn lane. 13. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 14. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be • minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 15. That a 6 foot wide easement be granted to the City along the bay frontage so as to provide unobstructed public access across the entire project. Said easement shall be improved with concrete or other materials meeting the approval of the Public Works Department. 16. That the trash enclosure access be provided from within the development rather than across the public sidewalk with the location to be approved by the Public Works Department. 17. That the overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded across the public right-of-way to the nearest appropriate pole. -31- COMMISSIONERS May 24, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 18. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 19. 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. 20. That a park dedication fee for three dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 1950 of the Municipal Code prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 21. The.applicant shall include within the project's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's), specific language pertaining to the method and procedure for resolution of conflicts that may occur between the residential condominiums and the commercial condominium Said language shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney, prior to the recordation of • the parcel map. Discussion Item: Discussion Item Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 23 No. 1 Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so LCP 23 as to establish a policy regarding private ocean front encroachments on public property. Recommend to INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach I Initiate Commissioner Pers6n suggested that before the Planning Commission makes recommendations to grant a leasehold or encroachment permit to the property owners, the following information be provided for Commission review: average square foot value of property along the ocean front, the fair market value of ocean front property, the fair market value of leasehold ocean front property, and the cost per square foot to lease ocean front property at winter and summer rates. -32- COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes Absent • • 'dA �d,0 O� � d�Y cd 'Pow '�� '�.e. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1990 MINUTES INDEX Chairman Pomeroy suggested that the existing ocean front sidewalk be extended through the encroachment areas so as to allow the public to use the sidewalk instead of detouring to an adjoining street. * Motion was made and voted on to recommend to City Council * * * * to initiate Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 23. MOTION * CARRIED. s s s ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add' 1 Business The Planning Commission directed staff to place the following items on a future Planning Commission Agenda: 1. Request to consider amending the Municipal Code so as Chimneys to allow an additional.heigbt of 12 inches for chimneys in excess of the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. 2. Request to establish guidelines for requiring drought Drought resistant landscaping for projects in the City. Resistant Landscape Commissioner Glover and Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, discussed the asphalt area adjacent to the sidewalk on Avon Avon St. Street that is being used to park automobiles. ADJOURNMENT. 9:45 p.m. Adjournmen JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -33-