Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/1984ft ! v MNM'.') VCIC) REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: 'City Council Chambers x TIME:. .7:30 P.M. - - i y u o DATE: June 2(11,, �1�984 a g o I of ty MINUTES INDEX Present x x x x x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT - James D. Hewicker, Planning Director - Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney - STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer - Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Craig Bluell, Senior Planner - - Joanne Baade, Recording Secretary * • x i Minutes of May 24, 1984 - Minutes -- 5/24/84 'on x Motion was made for approval of the minutes of the Plan- es x x x x x x ning Commission meeting of May 24, 1984 as written, which Abstain x MOTION CARRIED. - - e Minutes of June 7, 1984 - Minutes - 6/7/84 -- Consideration of the Planning Commission minutes of June 7 1984 was deferred to the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 1984. Requests for Continuances --- - - Requests for Con- - Staff recommended that Agenda Item No.. 2 ( -Use Permit No. tinuances 3095 and Variance No. 1112) be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 1984. -- - Motion I I *11 Ix I I I Motion was made to continue. Use Permit No. 3095 and Vari- All Ayes ante No. 1112 to the Planning Commission meeting of.JUly 5, 1984, which 'MOTION - .CARRIED. • .f R _ A 7t � r v � m van � 7t p° • in June 21, 1984 Tn Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) MINUTES Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of the Red Onion Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment so as to allow the expansion of the "net public area" for the purpose of constructing a dance floor and to allow dancing in conjunction with the existing live entertain- ment.- The proposal also includes a request to pay an annual in -lieu fee to the city for all of the additional required off- street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 57 -25 (Resubdivision No. 375) iocated at 2406 Newport Boulevard, on the easterly side of Newport Boulevard, southerly of 26th Street, on the . $alb a Peninsula. I � i ZONES: �C -1 and C -2 APPLICANTS: Steve and Rick Loomis (The Red Onion), Newport Beach OWNER:. - Mrs. Jean Belden, Newport Beach Current Planning Administrator Laycock stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider - imposing an additional Condition of Approval to Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended), as follows- "That the handicapped parking space indicated on the plot plan shall be accessible at all times to vehicles of handicapped persons dur- ing regular hours of operation of the-restaur- ant facility." Planning Director Hewicker advised that subsequent to the time that the regular staff report was written for the subject item, staff received a phone call.from a repre- sentative of the Red Onion restaurant indicating that they wished to modify their application so as to withdraw that portion of the request which made reference to dancing. Therefore, Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has prepared an addendum to the original staff report that essentially INDEX Item #1 U.P. #1581 (Amended) Approved Condi- r: Motion All Ayes • COMANSSKYI, RSJ June 21, 1984 MNUrES EX M 1 * m LO I s contains all of the Findings and Conditions of the prior report, with the exception of those relating to the dance floor. Mr. Bewicker clarified that the only issue now pending before the Planning Commission is the request to expand the net floor area of the subject establishment. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Chad Dunstan, 2300 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicants. Mr. Dunstan relayed the Applicants' concurrence with the Find- ings and Conditions contained in the addendum to the staff report. There being no others desiring to appear and be'heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Balalis noted that the City is presently con - sidering t�e possibility of'raising the fees charged for in -lieu pa king permitsi I light of this possibility, Commissioner Balalis suggested that an additional sentence . be added to .Condition of Approval No -. 6 to read as follows: "The Applicant is put on notice that the fees for in -lieu parking permits may be subject to change, and that change may increase substantially in the future." Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1581 (Amend- ed), subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in the addendum to the staff - report, with revisions as follows: 1) That an additional condition be added to read, "That the handicapped parking space indicated on the plot plan shall be accessible at all times to vehicles of handicapped persons during regular hours of operation of the restaurant facility;" and 2) That an additional sentence be added to Condition of Approval No. 6 to read, "The Applicant is put on notice that the fees for in -lieu parking permits may be subject to change, and that change may increase substan- tially in the future." MOTION CARRIED. - Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted. Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and is compati- ble with surrounding land uses. EX Pp • m po o _ • June 21, 1984 Lail MINWES 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended), under the circumstances of this case, will not 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 proper- ty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and eleva- tions,� except as noted }x low. s I , 2. That dancing shall not be permitted on the subject property unless an amended Use Permit application is approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The proposed dance floor indicated on the approved .:plot plan shall be designated for "expanded dining or ,-bar area" only. 4. That employees of the restaurant facility shall park in the Municipal parking lot at all times. 5. That the sound from the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure; and fur- ther that all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed when live entertainment is conducted on the site. 6. That three (3) in -lieu parking.spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the restaurant use and that the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Applicant is - put on notice that the fees for in -lieu parking permits may be subject to change, and that change may increase substantially in the future. n x v m 'o '� o � 7c p • • June 21, 1984 MWUTES 7. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended) shall be fulfilled. S. That the Planning Commission may add or modify condi- tions 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 detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 9. That the handicapped parking space indicated on the plot plan shall be accessible at all times*to vehicles of handicapped persons during regular hours of opera- tion of the restaurant facility. ,e x I A. Use Permit No. 3095 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages on property located in the retail service commercial area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to pay an annual in -lieu fee to the City so as-to.allow a portion of the required.off- street parking spaces to be located in the Mariner's Mile Municipal Parking Lot. A modification to the zoning Code is also requested so as to allow the use of tandem and compact parking - spaces in con- junction with a valet parking service, and to waive a por- tion of the required landscaping within.the off- street parking area., and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND B. Variance No. 1112 (Public Hearing) Request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces in conjunction with the establishment of a restaurant on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan Area. INDEX Item #2 U.P. #3095 AND Vaiiance #1112 Both Continued to 7/5/84 Motion All Ayes • n �C r c 0 m Ix June 21, 1984 M ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: SP -5 Yu -Ter Mau, Newport Beach Francis J. Seitz, Tigard, Oregon Planning Commission continued Use Permit No. 3095 and Variance No. 1112 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 5,.1984. . M MUTES *Later . in the meeting, Dennis O'Neil,. 3200 Park Drive, - Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. O'Neil stated that the Applicant twtill stipulate tqq the continuance of this item, with the understanding thad a final decision will be made at the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 1984. Mr. O'Neil relayed his understanding that the City Attorney's Office requires additional time to prepare an appropriate condition.concerning Mr. Mau's leasehold interest in the property and his ability to dedicate the necessary right - of -way. Mr. O'Neil then questioned whether there is any additional information the Planning Commission and /or staff might require with regards to this application. Chairman King clarified that the City Attorney''sOffice is concerned that any condition appropriate to.the dedi- cation not require the Applicant to dedicate property that he is unable to give. Chairman King then urged that the Applicant continue to work with the City with respect to the design of the project. Mr. O'Neil responded that the Applicant will continue to work with-the City, and commented that Mr. Mau has pro- vided the City Attorney's Office with a copy of the property lease. II ax �x � r a � m n a °+ o ❑ a • 0 11] June 21, 1984 M � •i A. Resubdivision No. 773 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3091 (Revised) (Public Hearing) MINUTES Request to permit the construction of a 4 -unit residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -3 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a reduced Width for a proposed parking access drive in conjunction with extra wide garages. i I AND C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 8 (Discus- sion) Request to consider a- Residential. Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 4 -unit residential condominium development pursuant to'the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low- and moderate- income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Parcel.]. of Parcel Map 84 -1 (Resub- division No. 403) located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the .southerly side of East Balboa Boule- vard between "E" Street and "F" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 - - APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNER: Robert P. Warmington, Costa Mesa ENGINEER/ - - ARCHITECT: Same as Applicant INDEX Item #3 Resub. #773 AND U.P. #3091 (Revised) MR All Approved Condi- tionally I x r v r m v 3 0 � 7c p June 21, 1984 MINUTES • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Fully Pulaski, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pulaski discussed the back- ground of the project, and stated that the design of the structure conforms with the City's.development standards. Liz Wallace, 2017 East Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that she is the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the property in question. Ms. Wallace commented that the Coastal Commis- sion, in 1978, recommended that the subject property be zoned R-1 in the front and R -2 in the back. Ms. Wallace then discussed her concern with the density of the Pen- insula and expressed her belief that the proposed struc- ture wou d not be in keeP'ng with surrounding development. Ms. wall ce then stab @d, j�n behalf of the Balboa Penin- sula Point Association, that the proposed structure is too large to be situated'on the Peninsula and relayed the Association's concern with the potential for setting a precedent. .In response to Ms. Wallace's comments relative to down - zoning the property, Commissioner Kurlander stated that it would be inappropriate.for the City to downzone the property at this time inasmuch as a specific project is pending before the City. Commissioner Person stated that he had been informed that the Balboa Peninsula Point Association would not be sending a representative to speak in opposition to the subject application. Ms. Wallace responded that Mr. Pendell was to have been at this evening's meeting; however, she added that she came to the meeting this evening as she was of the opin- ion that Mr: Pendell was still out of town. X P c 0 � a` � C ❑ a r: All Ayes I I I x Commissioner Goff referred to Ms. Kamph's statement that the proposed project is fait accompli, and stated that he does not consider this, nor any other item before the Plan- ning Commission, to be decided until after the public hear- ing has concluded and the Planning Commission has voted thereon. Commissioner Balalis referred to his previously expressed concerns relative to possible sale of the property, and suggested that an additional Condition of Approval be imposed to read as follows: "That the total second- and third -floor separa- tions between Units B and C shall be no less _ than illustrated on the approved plans." Rolly Pulaski, Applicant ?indicated concurrence with Coax missioner Halalis' sugges le�d Condition of Approval. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto, recommend that the City Council certify that the Environ- mental Document is complete, and approve.Resubdivision No. 773, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: - 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared incompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this pro-. ject. INDEX �x c o a x a s o _ 0 June 21, 1984 1 ,tom � �.����. • � MINUTES Commissioner.Person stated.that the project meets the City's development standards. Additionally, Commissioner Person suggested that if the Balboa Peninsula Point Association and /or the Central Newport Beach Association feel that other Peninsula - properties -merit a review in terms of.zoning, that the Association(s) should request - a City review thereon. In response to Planning Commission inquiry, Ms. Wallace commented that she resides at 2017 East Ocean Boulevard. Ms. Wallace added that although she is the owner of a_ four -plea, the units are small and closely resemble houses. -- Commissioner Balalis expressed his disagreement with Ms Wallace's allegation that the proposed density for the project is excessive, -an pointed out that the project complied with City.laW.1 Commissioner Balalis then brought notice to the fact that the subject property is presently for sale and discussed his concern with the possibility of the new owner modifying the develop- ment plans for the property. Commissioner Balalis requested that Ms. Wallace state her concerns with the proposed design of the project. Ms. Wallace responded that she is concerned with the height of the rear units, inasmuch as she felt same would affect the rentability of her units due to the resultant lack of view and air flow. Additionally, Ms. Wallace discussed her concern with the decks extending to the wall, and the possibility of noise problems arising. therefrom. - Commissioner Balalis pointed out that the decks are per- mitted to extend to the setback line. Additionally,.it was noted that the decks are proposed for the ground - level only. - - - Lillian Kamph, 1320 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and opined that the project is fait accompli. Ms. Kamph then requested clarification as to the portion of the building which would face her property. Consequently, Planning Director Hewicker displayed the project plans and reviewed same with Ms. Kamph. Ill" 0 0 F x f 5. 9 0 m w i m i X ° C a E 6 j 0 b O t a it 4 June: 21,`1984 .. MINUTES INDEX 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the pro- posed project, all feasible mitigation measures dis- cussed in the Environmental Document have been incor- porated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initia Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto, that if the mitigation measures are incorpora- ted into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. B. RESUBDIVISION NO.!773° i Ef Findings: 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Resudivision No. 773. 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. 1. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from 'a planning standpoint. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 5. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. ion 46 Ayes 0 n r 0 Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 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 the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council'as required by the approval of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended). - fill Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3091 (Re- vised), subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A ", with an additional Condition to read as follows: . "That the total second - and third -floor separa- tions between Units B and C shall be no less than illus- trated on the approved plans." MOTION CARRIED. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3091 (REVISED) Findings: 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Use Permit No. 3091 (Revised). 2. That each of the proposed units has -been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 3. The project complies with all applicable standards, - plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed pro - ject is located at the time of approval,. except for the width of the proposed access drive. 4. The project lot size conforms to the zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. COMMISSIONERS. June. 21,` 1984 MNUTES E r C Of Ne v 3 o i �c p °- �• }- Beach . ROLL CCU - INDEX 6. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development.. 7. That the reduced width of the proposed vehicular access drive is acceptable in conjunction with wider than standard garage parking spaces on the 45- foot -wide parcel. 8. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neigh- borhood or the general ,, welfare of the City. 9. Thatithe proposed buli-dIng -will be designed.7in full compliance with the height limitations of the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District on the front one -half of the lot, and of the 28 /32'Foot Height Limitation District on the rear one -half of the site, and further that said building is of comparable height to the adjoining single- family dwelling easterly of the sub- ject property (i.e., 28 feet.t.for the proposed development and 32 feet t for the existing structure). 10. The proposed use of a narrow vehicular access aisle will not, under the circumstances of this- particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing . or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consis- tent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. That the proposed development will generate an increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a. fair -share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumula- tive-- affect of additional traffic generated by the . residential development. is 0 COMANSS10I15. June, 21;`1984` MINUTES of NeNWt Beach ex _ v • m Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and eleva- tions, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed third -floor living areas shall he revised so as to be in conformance with all applicable Provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition). This condition will necessitate a second stairway from the third -level living areas to the ground level. 3. That two on -site garage spaces shall be provided for each unit. 4. That all Conditions of Approval of Resubdivision No. 773 be fulfilled. tj - q(j- - - - 5. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K -6 and K -7. 6..-Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 7. That a grading plan if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 8. The grading permit shall include, if required, a des- cription of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to mini- mize impact of haul operations. 9: An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to. the approval of the Building Department. - - - • Motion All Ayes � r Ix June 21, 1984 10. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, - and.the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. . 11. That the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council as required by the approval of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended). 12. That the proposed residential development shall meet the provisions of Section 20.11.020, B., of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as to permitted building heights in the R -3 District on the Bal- boa Peninsula. 13. That the proposed, icur y gate shall be equipped with an automatic d#ening and closing device or said gate shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet measured from curb line. 14. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Permits, the applicant shall pay Fair -Share for circulation system improvements and noise walls.as established by Ordinance. 15. That the total second- and third -floor separations between Units B and C shall be no less than illus- trated on the approved plans. ""JTES Motion was made for approval of Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 8, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That based upon the information presented to the City, if four new units were to be developed on -site, it is infeasible to provide an affordable housing unit on -site or off -site. 2. That the development of this site is not exempt from the provisions of State Law relative to low and moderate - income housing units within the Coastal. . Zone. _ - -15- CCu1AAAj5SK)NE1tS June 21, 1984 MINUTES ix 5 p tot" City of NeMxxt Beach FOU CAU JINDEX w • 3. That it is not necessary to provide affordable housing related to this application on -site or off -site. Condition: 1. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 773 and use Permit No. 3091 (Revised) shall be fulfilled. x x x General Plan Amendment No. 83 -2(b) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to ute the Community Housing Market Analysis and Housing' Ne t3s Assessment Sections on the basis of more recent data and revise the constraints to Housing Delivery and Housing Program Sections in response to implementation progress made since November of 1982. This amendment is being made pursuant to Government Code Section 65580,.et seq. Also requested is the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: - The City of.Newport Beach Advance Planning Administrator Lenard reported that the State Department of Housing and Community Development identified three specific areas of concern with the City's "draft Housing Element Amendment, to wit: 1. In the area of needs assessment, HCD felt there was a potential for confusing the relationship of the demand/supply analysis with the SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model. Mr. Lenard advised that staff has subsequently modified language to the "Housing Needs Summary" of the document in order to clarify the relationship of the two needs assessments. Mr. Lenard commented that staff is confident that the revised verbiage will satisfy HCD's concerns. Item #4 GPA 83 -2(b) Recom- mended Approval to City Council �x � r 7 • m c3o i;c o June 21, 1984.. Me MINUTES _ Kl-&L I-AU 1 l t I 1 _I 1 I 11NDEx is Motion All Ayes 0 2. HCD felt that the 1983 -1988 SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model should extend to the year 1989. Therefore, Mr. Lenard advised that the RHAM in the June 21, 1984 draft Housing Element has been extended by one year in the manner agreed upon by HCD and SCAG, i.e., multiplication of the 1988 need (1,561 units) by 1.2. 3. HCD was concerned that the Housing Element neglected to analyze the needs of large families. Mr. Lenard advised that staff has added 'a section to the docu- ment to address the issue of large families. Mr. Lenard commented that staff has had good cooperation from HCD. Additionally, Mr. Lenard relayed staff's opin- ion that HCD will concur that the City has fulfilled all requirements after ey have reviewed the proposed document changes. The public hearing was opened in connection with this agenda item, and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. During the course of discussion on GPA 83 -2(b), the Planning Commission complimented staff for a job well done in the preparation of the City's Housing Element Amendment. Commissioner Winburn stated that she was.not: present at the Planning;Commission meetings of April 16, 1984 and April 19, 1984 when the discussions on GPA 83 -2(b) took place; however, she added..thit she has read the minutes from both meetings as well as the supporting materials. Commissioner Winburn questioned the Assistant City Attorney as to whether she would be able to vote on this issue. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele responded that Commissioner Winburn can vote on the subject General Plan Amendment. Motion was made that the Planning commission adopt Reso -. lution No. 1121, recommending to the City Council that the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan be amended, and accepting a Negative Declaration prepared in conjunction with this amendment, which MOTION CARRIED. e;i x :rt ' S v a m n 3 0 x 0 p s 2. otion All Ayes June 21; 1984 Proposed General Plan Amendments (CPA 84 -1)- (Discussion) Consideration of initiation of amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan as follows: A. Newport Center Animal Hospital A request of Newport Center Animal Hospital to allow an additional 1,500 square feet of office development in Block 300 of Newport Center. AND B. Irvine- Coastal Area MINUTES A proposal to amend the Newport Beach General Plan so as to establish land use de ignations for the City's Sphere of Infl ence in the.IY'vile.Coastal area. Motion was made that the Planning Conmission recommend to the City Council that GPA 84 - -1(A) and (B) be initiated, which MOTION CARRIED. - Use Permit No. 2046 (Discussion) Appeal of the Applicant from the City's interpretation of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to the expiration date of Use Permit No. 2046 that permitted the construction of an office building that exceeded the basic height limit in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also included the use of drive -up teller facilities and roof parking, a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces and for a portion of the required off- street parking,' and the acceptance of an environmental document. -18- INDEX 84 -1 GPA 84 -1 Request and Upheld Planning Director's. Position Re Expira- tion of U.P. #2046 0 • Ax r a 7 ° m 33g° +020 June 21, 1984 ,I NUNUTES LOCATION: Lot 716, Newport Mesa Tract -, located at 1522 Placentia Avenue, on proper- ty bounded by Placentia Avenue, Superior Avenue and Fifteenth Street in the West Newport Triangle area. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Rothery Roh Development Group, Los Alamitos OWNER: Same as Applicant Alan Rothery appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf o- the Applicant, othery Roh Development Group._ Mr. try stated.th t Applicant purchased the sub- ject property in October, 1983 from Heritage Bank. Upon closing escrow, Mr. Rothery advised that Rothery Roh immediately commenced efforts to satisfy the conditions of the use permit for the property. During the course of his presentation,,Mr. Rothery stated that the Applicant obtained a demolition permit to remove the existing tem- porary building from the site on Febr•iary 16, 1984 and on March 21, 1984 obtained a grading permit.. Mr. Rothery advised that the demolition.and grading were diligently initiated following the obtainment of the necessary per- mits. Additionally, Mr. Rothery pointed out.that the -.- Newport Beach City Council acted on the use permit agree- ment and accepted the Applicant's surety bonds on March 26, 1984.. Mr. Rothery stated that upon attempting.to obtain a building permit from the City on June 1, 1984, staff discovered that the use permit had expired on March 22; 1984 and, therefore, advised that a building permit could not be issued.. Mr. Rothery stated that he then met with the Planning Director and Assistant City Attorney, who advised that he must either file a new use permit application for the proposed development, or appeal staff's decision to the Planning Commission. During the course of his comments, Mr. Rothery stressed that the Applicant worked continu- ously with the City from the time the property was ac- quired, as well as the fact that Rothery Rob was un- aware of the time constraints associated'with the use INDEX iii i r Fv� m j O • June 21, 1984 MW 0 •1 N UNUTES TRM permit. Mr. Rothery stated that the Applicant is not requesting any revisions to the original use permit. In answer to a question posed by the-Planning Commission as to whether the Planning Commission possesses the legal right to extend a use permit, Assistant City Attorney Gabriele responded that the Planning Commission does have that right provided the use permit has not already expired. Mr. Gabriele advised that the City had no duty to speci- fically alert the Applicant to the termination date of the use permit. Mr,. Gabriele went on to explain that there is discretion within .the`Commission to review the facts and determine whether it's appropriate, on an equitable basis, to give credit for the special circumstances surrounding this application. Mr. Gabriele pointed out; however, at such an acti could be precedent setting inasmuch al there was'n4 a;irmative representatibn.on the part of the City upon which the Applicant relied. Chairman King opined that the Planning Commission should consider applications on a case -by -case basis. Addi- tionally, Chairman King expressed his belief that the Applicant operated in good faith, and may have been able to overcome the deadline had he been,aware of the time. constraints associated with.the use permit. In answer to question posed by the Planning Commission, Planning Director Hewicker pointed out that the Planning Commission can either sustain staff's position or over- rule the decision of staff and find that the use permit has not expired. It was noted that the Applicant has submitted a new use permit application that will be.set for public hearing on July 5, 1984, if the Applicant's appeal is denied. :7 Motion Ayes Nays 0 x � r c o ■ m C3 0 � 7t p • c n S o � o i � Ix x x June 21, 1984 � ** - •l MINUTES Commissi.oner.Balalis stated that demolition and grading do not constitute vesting. Commissioner Balalis dis- cussed his concern with overruling staff's interpretation on this issue and suggested that the situation could be appropriately resolved by the submission of a new use permit application for Planning Commission action on July 5, 1984. Commissioner Balalis then discussed the possibility of the City waiving the fees associated with a new application. - Chairman King pointed out that in addition to performing the demolition and grading for the project, the Applicant has also satisfied all of the conditions relating to the use permit. Additionally, Chairman King commented that the Applicant would have been able to obtain the building permits had the date problem not been discovered. Chair- man King brought notice .t the fact that Rothery Roh Development Group is not The original project applicant, and expressed his belief that Rothery Roh has proceeded in good faith with the project. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Applicant would not have been able to obtain the building permits by March 22, 1984, i.e., the expiration date of the use permit. Commissioner Ninburn expressed her concurrence with Com- missioner Balalis' suggestion that the fees be waived if a new application is found to be necessary.. Commissioner Kurlander. discussed his concern with the setting of a precedent and spoke in support of a new application being submitted and expeditiously processed. - Motion was made that the Planning Commission deny the Applicant's request and uphold the Planning Director's position relative-to the expiration date of Use Permit No. 2046, which MOTION CARRIED. _ In answer to a question.posed by the Planning Commission as to whether the Planning Commission can waive the fees associated with the new use permit application, Planning Director Hewicker responded that the City Council has the exclusive authority to waive the subject fees. , • • June 21, 1984 MINUTES n 7C V � 0 a ° a City of Newport Beach Mr. Rothery stated that the Applicant has already paid the fees and is not concerned therewith. Mr. Rothery stated that he is concerned, however, with the fact that they have already funded a construction loan and are in jeopardy of having the project changed in a substantial manner. There being no further business. .the Planning. Commission Adjourn - adjourned at 9:OO'p.m. went JAMES PERSON, Secretary Newport Beach City Planning Commission