Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/1988REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONERS PLACE: City Council Chambers MINUTES TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: June 23, 1988 ?�9 gyp Sao ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present Absent * Chairman Pers6n was absent. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of June 9. 1988: Minutes of 6 -9 -88 Commissioner Debay referred to page 15, paragraph 3, of • subject Minutes, and requested that "clarified" be corrected to state "classified ". Ayes * * * * * Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended June Abstain * 9, 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 17. 1988, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance: Request for • James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant, Grace Restaurant Company, has requested that Continuance Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 1942 (Amended), regarding a change of an existing Coco's Restaurant to a 24 hour coffee shop, be continued to the July 7, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 23, 1988 �+9p�yC fZ y ` �9y 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. Ayes * * * * * * 1942 (Amended) to the July 7, 1988, Planning Commission Absent * meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 848 (Public Hearing) Item No.l R848 Request to resubdivide an existing lot and an abandoned portion of 28th Street into a single parcel of land for a two unit residential condominium development on Approved property located in the SP -6 District. LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 128, Lake Tract, and a portion of abandoned 28th Street, located at 213 28th Street, on the northerly side of 28th Street between Newport Boulevard (southbound) and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. • ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Balboa Pacific (Pete Rose), Newport Beach OWNER: John Van Koevering, Las Vegas, Nevada ENGINEER/ Same as applicant ARCHITECT The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and because no one appeared before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion, * Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 848 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding Condition No. 6 requesting in -lieu park fees, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that said fees would be spent`in the area that would benefit the development. Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 848, Absent * MOTION CARRIED. • FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 23, 1988 � 9R'� C $9ti yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. 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 each dwelling be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley. 5. That County Sanitation District fees be paid. 6. That in -lieu park fees shall be paid for one dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the parking layout shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 9. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. 3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES %a 'e F 0� June 23, 1988 y of% s m 92 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 869 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single 8869 parcel of land for a two unit residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 21, Block 433, Corona del Mar, located at 441 Goldenrod Avenue, on the southwesterly corner of Goldenrod Avenue and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Tobias and Miner Construction, Newport Beach OWNER: T & M Properties, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Costa Mesa • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that an in- lieu park fee is not required for this particular case because two units previously existed on the subject property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker explained that a conversion of a duplex to a two unit condominium becomes effective when the building has been finalized and the units have been occupied. Commissioner Koppelman expressed her concerns that the Planning Commission no longer reviews the plans for residential condominium projects, and she commented that maybe the Planning Commission should reconsider reviewing said projects. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to a memo that he submitted to the Planning Commission to recommend the addition of Finding No. 6 which states "that it is necessary to restrict property line wall heights adjacent to a street near the alley to provide stopping sight distance for vehicles leaving the alley." He also recommended the addition of Condition No. 13 as follows: "that the property line wall along Second Avenue shall be no higher than 36 inches within 15 feet of the alley." Mr. Webb explained why the Public Works Department recommended said finding and condition. He stated that inasmuch as tall fences are being -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES poso�m June 23, 1988 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL L INDEX constructed along side property lines to within five feet of alleys intersecting streets throughout Corona del Mar, the Public Works Department has suggested as a safety measure that walls not be permitted any higher than three feet above the ground which would enable a motorist coming out of the alley to see pedestrians and automobiles before crossing the sidewalk area, and it would provide an adequate sight distance. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City Attorney previously did not feel that the said condition would be warranted; however, Mr. Hewicker commented that the City Attorney currently believes there may be a potential safety hazard. He further stated that if the Planning Commission concludes that there may be potential danger to either the occupants or persons walking or driving adjacent to the subject property, the Planning Commission would have to make a finding to impose said condition. Mr. Hewicker also suggested that the Planning Commission consider landscaping be kept to a height of three feet or less in the area adjacent to the intersection of the alley with Second Avenue inasmuch as there is a possibility that the landscaping could grow up to a height that could obstruct visibility. Mr. Webb suggested that the foregoing condition be amended to state "that the property line wall, screen planting, or any other appurtenances in the three foot side yard setback adjacent to Second Avenue be no higher than three feet within 15 feet of the alley." Acting Chairman Pomeroy referred to the diagram that staff distributed to the Planning Commission pertaining to the surrounding property, and he stated that there are similar obstructions throughout Corona del Mar. Mr. Webb stated that the Public Works Department has considered that the Zoning Code be amended so as to automatically require the condition on every development. Mr. Scott Tobias,' applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that he opposes the foregoing condition inasmuch as the plans have been completed for a four foot high wall as permitted by the Zoning Code. Mr. Tobias stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". • Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and Mr. Tobias wherein he replied that he was concerned that there would be a loss of privacy. He stated that the -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES O �i^ June 23, 1988 16 c yo +� s vlti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX wall runs along the carport area, and does not extend into the required five foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley. Mr. Webb explained that the wall would begin at the alley setback, and that ten feet of the wall would be permitted to be three feet high and then could be raised to four feet. Commissioner Debay commented that a person could physically climb over a three foot high fence. Mr. Hewicker commented that instead of having a six foot high wall and a six foot high gate at the corner of the carport, there would be a three foot high wall and the gate could be moved ten feet forward on the lot where the wall may be raised from three feet to six feet if desired. Mr. Tobias stated that the current plans indicate a five foot high wall that drops to four feet. Mrs. Patricia Ellis, property owner at 608 Begonia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to state her concerns regarding alley congestion. Mr. Hewicker explained that the foregoing condition only pertains to corner lots. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 869 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the foregoing Finding No. 6, and Condition No. 13 amended as follows: "that the property line wall, screen planting or any other appurtenances in the three foot side yard setback adjacent to Second Avenue shall be no higher than 3 feet within 15 feet of the alley." Acting Chairman Pomeroy stated that it may be more appropriate to amend the Zoning Code than to add Condition No. 13, He suggested a see - through material such as wrought iron or plexiglass, which would permit a higher fence but would allow people to look through and see the traffic. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Webb replied that a three foot high wall would allow a person sitting in an automobile in the alley to see over the wall. Discussion ensued regarding the change of grade. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion as amended inasmuch as the safety factor should • be considered, and other considerations could be made when the Zoning Code is amended. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he concurred with -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yO o�n1F Fp�•�t^ June 23, 1988 mG� 9N 99'c'u v m9% ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Acting Chairman Pomeroy's statements inasmuch as it would be more appropriate to amend the Zoning Code, and that there would be a burden to the applicant. He stated that he would support the motion because of the safety factor, and that the recommendation would not be a financial burden to the applicant. Motion was voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 869 * * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" Ayes * including added Finding No. 6 and Condition No. 13. 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 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That sidewalk constructed along the Second Avenue frontage and construction of ramps for the Handicapped will improve pedestrian safety. 6. That it is necessary to restrict property line wall heights adjacent to a street near the alley to provide stopping sight distance for . vehicles leaving the alley. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. 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. -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \0A1 ° June 23, 1988 ��CC q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 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 prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling 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 a 10 foot wide radius corner cutoff at the corner of Second Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue be dedicated to the public. 6. That sidewalk be constructed along the Second Avenue frontage; that curb access ramp be constructed'at the intersection of Second Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue; and that all displaced sidewalk along Goldenrod Avenue and recessed and displaced curb and gutter along Second Avenue be reconstructed. All work shall be completed under • an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid. 9. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 10. That the parking layout shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer 11. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 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. 13. That the property line wall, screen planting or any • other appurtenances in the 3 foot side yard setback adjacent to Second Avenue shall be no higher than 3 feet within 15 feet of the alley. 8 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ��m��m June 23, 1988 �yo y ` y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I IIL INDEX Resubdivision No. 870 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 R870 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for a two family residential condominium — development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 18, Block 530, Corona del Mar, located at 516 Begonia Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Begonia Avenue, between Second Avenue and Third Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Frank Ragagli, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Frank Ragagli, applicant, appeared before the • Planning Commission, and stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision Ayes * * * * * * No. 870 subject to the findings and conditions in Absent * Exhibit "A ". 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 19.08.1020 of the Municipal -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \OA' Ju ne 23, 1988 y fff�o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. 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 each dwelling be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid. 5. That the parking layout shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That all vehicular access to the property be from • the adjacent alley. 7. That park dedication fees for one dwelling, unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 9. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Exception Permit No. 32 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to permit the continued use of an existing free- EP No.32 standing sign located at the northwesterly corner of Lafayette Avenue and Villa Way which is used as an off- Continued site sign to identify a nearby commercial use located to 7 -7 -88 within the interior area of Cannery Village. The • proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the existing sign to continue to encroach approximately 4 feet into a required 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to Lafayette Avenue. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �A q June 23, 1988 a yooyc c o ! y ` �gy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX .LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 325, Lancaster's Addition, located at 2800 Villa Way, on the northeasterly corner of Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue, within the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANTS: Louise Capper and Linda Lee, Newport Beach OWNER: Jim McCollough, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Richard Ramos appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Ramos stated that the beauty salon, Hair West, is beneficial to Cannery Village; that the 3 1/2 foot by 5 foot subject sign is used as a parking designation for six off -site parking spaces; that the sign assists customers to the beauty salon's location which causes less traffic • confusion on Newport Boulevard; and that the location of the beauty salon is isolated, unique, and the sign would not set a precedent. Ms. Linda Lee, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and in response to numerous questions posed to her by Commissioner Winburn, Ms. Lee replied that the subject Hair West sign has been on the site for 2 1/2 months; that Hair West has been in business in Cannery Village for two years; and that the artist drew a map on the sign that the business owners had not requested. Ms. Lee explained that she has a verbal agreement with the property owner to use five off -site parking spaces, and the applicants are requesting the sign to identify the parking spaces. Ms. Lee further explained that the applicants intended to modify the sign by removing the map and drawing an arrow to the assigned parking area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Lee replied that the parking arrangement between the property owner and the applicants commenced during the past month; that the sign originally displayed an arrow; that the applicants requested the parking spaces after the previous occupants of the adjacent restaurant use closed their business; and that there is no written parking arrangement in writing between the property owner and the applicants. -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ZAQ 0Fm June 23, 1988 d3 9N9�9pv �x 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Lee concurred that it is difficult to read the sign because of the design and the one -way street; that she had not been informed by the property owners that the sign would be in violation to the Sign Ordinance; that the cost incurred is $700.00; and that a redesigned sign would be aesthetically pleasing to the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay if the Cabiano Restaurant's sign was in violation, Mr. Hewicker replied that the restaurant was required to have parking and a sign identifying the parking lot. He stated that the subject sign on the corner and the manner in which it is displayed does not identify any parking area. He further stated that staff is of the opinion that it is an off -site directional sign that is designed to give direction only to Hair West. Mr. Hewicker stated that Hair West is one of the few businesses in the area that has on -site parking available. Mr. Hewicker suggested that if the off -site parking is needed and has been approved by the property owner, a smaller sign could be installed facing directly onto Villa Way at a height that could be read from an automobile height which states that the parking spaces are reserved for Hair West. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker replied that if the applicant modified a sign as suggested by staff that the Exception Permit could be allowed; that the off -site parking spaces are not required spaces; that the parking area be identified with a small sign across the parking spaces; and display a sign in the beauty salon that Hair West has made arrangements for additional parking. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Ms. Lee replied that the parking agreement has not been formalized; that the property owner agreed to the sign; and that a contractual agreement with the property owner would not be to anyone's advantage. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Ms. Lee replied that the applicants have an agreement with the property owner that the parking area can be used by Hair West until the building on the subject property has been leased for another use; that the applicants have not commenced payment for the sign awaiting the Planning Commission's decision; and that • the applicants paid $300.00 to the property owner for the sign plus the cost of the subject application. -12- COMMISSIONERS BG F 9Dyyi F9y g1 990 y(( O y ` y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23, 1988 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the Sign Ordinance, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Sign Code requires that an off -site directional sign is subject to the approval of an Exception Permit. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Ms. Lee replied that if the parking spaces would not be available in the future and the applicants had entered into a formal parking agreement with the property owner, the applicants would have to search elsewhere for additional parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker explained that the City does not require the beauty salon to provide parking spaces for its business other than the existing on -site parking spaces. Commissioner Koppelman stated that the sign in the present location is an advertisement and does not identify a parking lot. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she does not want to authorize off -site signs for advertising. She said that she would consider authorizing smaller signs in an appropriate place that would direct people coming to the beauty salon to the • parking spaces that would be available to them. In response to a suggestion by Commissioner Winburn regarding a continuation of the Exception Permit to July 7, 1988, Commissioner Koppelman replied that she would not approve an advertising sign. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he concurred with Commissioner Koppelman's foregoing statement. He stated that he may be supportive of a sign for the off -site parking spaces if it would be a much smaller sign, and if there would be a written agreement with the property owner that there is parking available. Acting Chairman Pomeroy considered the configuration of the street, and he stated that the sign directed the customers around the corner to the parking area. He suggested that the sign could be repainted to designate the available parking area. Motion * Motion was made to continue Exception Permit No. 32 to the July 7, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. * * * * * * Commissioner Winburn commented that the continuation would give the applicant time to contact the property nt * owner regarding the parking spaces. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y epp of die �a��m June 23, 1988 qy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3315 (Continued Public Hearin¢) Item No.5 OP3315 Request to permit the construction of two residential dwelling units which exceed the basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District on property Continued located in the "Retail Service Commercial Arean of the to 7 -7 -88 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also indludes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the second and third floor portions of the building to encroach 5 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley; and to allow the use of a compact parking space for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 95 -2, (Resubdivision No. 528), located at 508 29th Street, on the southeasterly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Jerry Adams, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed concerns that had previously been expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the application. He stated that the height of the building across the street from the subject site does not exceed the height limit, and that a City provision regarding the State Law which requires that a building with a parking requirement of one to ten parking spaces provide at least one handicapped parking space, can be waived. In reference to Condition No. 14 regarding handicapped parking spaces, Mr. Hewicker corrected an error in the condition which states "provided" to state "require ". Discussion ensued between the Planning`Commission and staff regarding the correct wording of said condition, and the Planning Commission concluded that "require" be amended to "waived ". The public hearing was opened in connection with this • item. Mr. Jeff Chamley appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to questions -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Z ��'Fq�F� June 23, 1988 9�A9'9f, 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Chamley replied that the purpose for the design of a three story building is to provide additional open space instead of developing the entire property; that the doors on the garages adjacent to the alley provide security but they would be willing to install open metal grates for the commercial parking spaces and a solid garage door for the residential parking spaces; and that he did not know who the future tenant would be for the office. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding letters of opposition from VanLoon Enterprises dated May 28, 1988, and Schock Boats dated June 2, 1988, Mr. Chamley replied that the applicant was aware of the letters. He stated that the primary concern in the letters was the residential use instead of the proposed building height. Mr. Hewicker stated that the residential use is a permitted use in Cannery Village. Mr. Chamley referred to Condition No. 11 requesting that the existing side yard fence shall be removed from the 10 foot rear yard setback and Condition No. 12 . requesting that the side yard wall adjacent to 29th Street shall be modified so as not to exceed a height of three feet within the front 10 feet of the subject property. Mr. Chamley explained that the purpose for the walls is to buffer noise from the adjoining boat yard and the trash bin in addition to the traffic. He described the plans for the walls from the plans on display. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that a landscape planter currently exists along 29th Street which is approximately five feet wide adjacent to the wall along the side property line. He explained that the planter provides enough site distance for an automobile to back out of a parking space. Mr. Webb stated that the proposed plan consists of two parking spaces which back out onto 29th Street. He said that staff would prefer access be only taken off of the alley; however, he explained that backing out onto 29th Street currently exists and staff believes that it would not be appropriate to change the plan but that some sight distance should be required. Mr. Webb commented that staff would not object to a see - through material for a wall. • In reference to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding Condition No. 12, Mr. Webb replied that Schock Boats has a passageway between the wall and the -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y��F�o�r�� June 23, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX warehouse building that is between eight to ten feet wide. He said that they sand and maintain boats everyday which creates noise throughout the day. Mr. Webb commented that an acrylic wall would provide some noise attenuation and some protection from the dust, but he said that he was not certain if it would protect the residents' line of sight inasmuch as they would be looking down into the commercial area. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy in reference to Condition No. 11, Mr. Webb replied that the Zoning Code does not allow walls in the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley, and that the subject wall is a nonconforming wooden fence. He explained that the condition would be appropriate so as to correct the nonconforming use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding Condition No. 12, Mr. Webb replied that a fence with see- through material above 3 feet must be approved by the Public Works Department. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan's approved mixed residential and commercial uses. He commented that the proposed development may be too intense for the subject site. Acting Chairman Pomeroy stated that the proposed structure would fit in aesthetically with the surrounding buildings. He discussed the scale of the proposed development, and he addressed the building's height which he said would allow open space as opposed to building on the entire lot. Commissioner Koppelman stated that her concern was the proposed building's height, and she compared said height with buildings in the adjacent area. Acting Chairman Pomeroy referred to the plans of the proposed development, and he stated that the third floor height is 11 feet, with the roof pitch going above that level. He commented that it would appear that the roof could be dropped three feet to an eight foot height and still have over a 12 foot ceiling height at the ridge • line. -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA oo�s°�^m June 23, 1988 'FS. 9 0 92 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation states that a 26 foot average roof height (with a height of 31 feet to the top of a pitched roof) is allowed without a use permit, and a 35 foot average roof height (with a height of 40 feet to the top of a pitched roof) requires a use permit. Commissioner Debay pointed out that the proposed height is 37 feet to the top of the pitched roof. Motion * Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3315 to the July 7, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Merrill requested that the applicant submit new plans showing a three foot to four foot reduction of ceiling height. Commissioner Winburn stated that her concern is the limited parking. She pointed out that three commercial parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the.alley, two commercial parking spaces are proposed in the front, and to allow an area for said parking spaces, there was a need for the building height. Commissioner Winburn stated that the project may be too intense for the site; however, she said that she liked the building as it is proposed. Commissioner Debay referred to adjacent three story structures. She pointed out that the structure is not on the street, it is not offensive, and there would not be a reason for her to deny the project. Acting Chairman Pomeroy stated that an open space was created by the way that the proposed structure is located on the lot and that there is not mass at the street level. He commented that if the plans could be modified by lowering the project two to three feet, that revision would improve the project. Ayes * * * * * Motion was voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3315 to Noes * the July 7, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 8 :50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m. -17- 311] L!I &ML *IiI MINUTES June 23, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 1942 (Amended)(Public HearinO Item No.6 UP1942A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted a change in operational characteristics of an existing Coco's Restaurant in the C -1 District so as to Continued add the incidental service of on -sale beer and wine. The proposed amendment includes a request to change the to 7 -7 -88 facility to a 24 hour coffee shop whereas the existing use permit limits the hours of operation from 7:00 a -m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. This application does not propose to increase the "net public area" of the restaurant. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block A, Tract No. 470, located at 2305 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of Acacia Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Grace Restaurant Company, Irvine OWNER: Martin A. Mangold, Trustee, Corona del • Mar. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the July 7, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. David Dill, 704 Acacia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to present a copy of a Memo that was distributed by him to Corona del Mar neighbors regarding the proposed public hearing. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. Ayes * * * * * * 1942 (Amended) to the July 7, 1988, Planning Commission Absent * meeting. MOTION CARRIED. -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES gi o s'i fGiG� June 23, 1988 yo t"t^�cnd dG F 9N 9� .0 9y'7y„ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No'. 3308 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3308A permitted the construction of three office buildings on the subject property which exceeded the 35 Foot Basic Denied Height Limit in Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed amendment involves a request to amend the previously established Condition No. 4, so as to permit a reduced parking requirement.of one parking space for each 250 square feet of net floor area whereas said condition currently requires one parking space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. LOCATION: A portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 86 -33, 34 (Resubdivision No. 529), located at 3600, 3610 and 3620 Birch Street on the northeasterly corner of Bristol Street North and Birch Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Strock Architects, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: The Wattson Company, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that if the applicant introduced compact parking spaces to the parking plan, he would be able to add approximately five parking spaces. He stated that staff has concerns regarding reducing parking requirements for the subject property inasmuch as the development is located in an area that is adjacent to an older developed area between Campus Drive and Birch Street that has office uses, and that the previous parking requirements for those offices were less than the current parking requirements. He commented that there is a parking shortage in the block west of the subject site. Mr. Hewicker further stated that staff has a concern that one space per 250 square feet of net floor area may not be adequate inasmuch as the applicant does not know the future use of the proposed buildings. Commissioner Debay commented that Newport Place Planned Community District Standards require one parking space • for each 225 square feet of net floor area as opposed to the subject request. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards were originally based on statements and guarantees by -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 23, 1988 2mG�y��9NOy9C4pa�o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX developers that it was their intent to develop projects that would accommodate all of the parking on -site, and that no parking would be permitted on the streets. He commented that there have been modifications of the one space per 225 square foot requirement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker replied that the modifications were given after the buildings were occupied, and that the applicants requested additional space that would be used only by the existing employees. Commissioner Winburn confirmed Mr. Hewicker's statement, and she said that the Planning Commission has not reduced the parking requirement prior to knowing what the uses would be in the office buildings. Acting Chairman Pomeroy and Don Webb, City Engineer, discussed the streets surrounding the subject development where no parking is permitted. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb stated that there will be no available on- street parking in the Santa Ana Heights area after redevelopment. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Arthur Strock, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Strock stated that he was not aware that Condition No. 4 of the original Use Permit No. 3308 required the applicant to go back to the Planning Commission if the applicant requested to reduce the parking requirement, instead of the Modifications Committee which is the procedure mandated by the Planned Community text. Mr. Strock referred to previous modifications requesting a reduction in parking requirements, and he stated that there is no more assurance of future uses of those office buildings than there would be in the proposed development. He commented that the proposed office buildings are built for sale, and he compared the proposed project to similar developments which he stated would be more appropriate examples than multi- tenant office buildings developed on a speculative basis with no assurance of occupants. Mr. Strock stated that the applicants proposed no compact parking spaces, 4 handicapped parking spaces, 22 - 9 foot wide parking spaces, and the remaining parking • spaces will be 8 -1/2 feet wide. He stated that he would agree to five compact parking spaces; however, he said that he would prefer that compact parking spaces be removed from the Zoning Code and that universal sized -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yq Oin'L��p�spFm June 23, 1988 d y� 99'OO q 9i G�9 py( �y0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX parking spaces be implemented. Mr. Strock stated that one parking space for each 225 square feet of net floor area would require an additional 16 parking spaces, and he withdrew to the display area to explain a parking plan. Mr. Strock stated that the applicant compared the proposed development with Koll Limited Edition, Koll Center Newport, consisting of 24 small office buildings that were and are for sale ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet, and he referred to the traffic study that was conducted for that area. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Strock regarding said development. Mr. Strock stated that a second development that the applicants used for similar comparisons to the subject development were the office buildings located at San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. He commented that a traffic analysis was also conducted for that area. He concurred with Condition No. 6 requesting a trash enclosure. Commissioner Debay referred to the modified plans that the applicant submitted to the March 14, 1988, City Council meeting, and she asked why the applicant changed the plans after the February 4, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Strock explained that the plans were modified for economic reasons; however, the use, footage, height, and landscaping were not affected. Mr. Hewicker stated that the revised plans indicate that the landscaping has been increased. In response to concerns expressed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Strock replied that the proposed development could accommodate 178 parking spaces, based upon one parking space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. However, he said that the applicants are requesting the same consideration as previous modification approvals that have been approved with reduced parking requirements. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Strock described the proposed plan that would include the additional required parking spaces of one parking space for each 225 square feet of net floor area, and he maintained that the landscaping would not be affected. He further stated that the applicants • would not object to conditions that would exclude certain tenants from occupancy. -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \0L0* June 23, 1988 1�``�qy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Winburn and Mr. Strock discussed the reduction of square footage that would be required to accommodate the parking spaces. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Merrill, Commissioner Di Sano, Acting Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Webb discussed compact space requirements, and Mr. Webb stated that staff has not conducted a study relating to said spaces. Discussion also ensued regarding universal sized parking spaces as opposed to compact parking spaces. Mr. Webb stated that the Traffic Engineer is currently conducting a study regarding universal parking spaces. The public hearing was reopened and Mr. Strock reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Strock stated that universal parking spaces are considered to be 8 -1/4 feet or 8 -1/2 feet wide and the length of the parking space to be approximately 18 feet, and he explained why the aisle width should also be taken into • consideration. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker explained that if the Planning Commission denied the subject amended use permit, the applicant would have to redesign the parking lot so as to provide an additional 18 parking spaces, or reduce the size of the building. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker stated that he has not seen the foregoing revised landscape plan, and that he did not know where the landscaping had been removed. Commissioner Winburn suggested that the application could be continued so the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to study the revised landscape plan. Mr. Strock considered appealing the application if the Planning Commission denied the request because most of the plans had been completed, and he explained what the applicant would be required to do to modify the plan if the City Council sustained the action of the Planning Commission. • Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Strock discussed the applicant's misunderstanding that he would go to the Modifications Committee to modify the parking -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \Xn June 23 , 1988 Ga y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX requirements. Commissioner Koppelman addressed the Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc. Traffic Consultants, report dated May 27, 1988, regarding the parking analysis, and the proposed development 'comparisons to two buildings located at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, to Koll Limited Edition office complex, and to Upper Newport Plaza. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the foregoing projects, Mr. Strock replied that he did not know if Upper Newport Plaza had been totally leased out. He advised that the consultants qualified their analysis by stating that "a total square footage for the buildings was not available and so a parking demand rate cannot be. directly determined." In response to numerous questions posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Strock replied that the office buildings will be sold to tenants; that said tenants may take full or partial possession of the office buildings; that if a tenant took full possession of a building, the gross square footage would be 12,706 square feet compared to 7,000 square feet 60,000 square feet in the Koll Limited Edition. Mr. Hewicker concluded that the applicant has submitted a difficult project for the staff inasmuch as the plan was first submitted to the Planning Commission to approve the height; that the plan was revised prior to the City Council public hearing; and that the applicant has returned with a third revision; and the applicant has not yet obtained a building permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would recommend that the applicant demonstrate who would be occupying the office buildings before reconsidering the parking requirements. Motion * Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3308 (Amended) subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Koppelman explained that if additional parking would be required for the project, there would be no additional parking areas available. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She explained that there is an uncertainty who will be occupying the buildings after the project has -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �r �1 June 23, 1988 2mG 9o�9ogA�,90 � �$O`$gti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX been completed and inasmuch as there is no available additional parking in the area, it would be difficult to rescind the parking requirement. Commissioner Winburn further stated that the one parking space for each 225 square feet of net public area should be maintained in the Newport Place Planned Community until the requirement is modified. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion, and he addressed the issue of compact parking spaces, and the lack of parking in the adjacent area. He said that it would be difficult to rectify the parking if additional parking would be needed after the office buildings had been occupied. Acting Chairman Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion. He stated that he supports universal parking spaces, and this may be a good project to test said parking. Acting Chairman Pomeroy stated that the one parking space for each 250 square feet of net public area for this type of use would be appropriate for the subject site compared to other sites in Newport Place. • However, he commented that he is supporting the motion because the applicant could have handled the situation in a different manner. Motion was voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3308 Ayes * k * * * (Amended) subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Absent * MOTION CARRIED. 1. That on street parking does not exist adjacent to the subject property in order to provide for overflow should the reduced parking requirement prove to be inadequate. 2. That the proposed office buildings will be permanent structures, and it will thus be difficult to reduce the intensity of on -site uses should the reduced parking ratio prove inadequate. 3. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 3308 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES a��� June 23, 1988 G9 9a'y f C Z4 y ` Xo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 659 (Public Hearin&j Item No.8 A659 Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to delete provisions which require the removal of dwelling units which exceed the allowable density permitted by the District in which Approved they are located when said dwelling units become 60 years old; and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that there have been two cases that have come to the City Council wherein it has been difficult to request property owners to remove dwelling units from their property. He stated that existing regulations will help govern these concerns inasmuch as structural alterations to the older buildings require the approval of the Modifications Committee. Discussion followed between Commissioner Debay and staff • regarding regulations if a nonconforming building burns down. Mr. Hewicker explained that if a nonconforming building was damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than 90 percent of appraised value, then the building can be restored only if a use permit is first obtained. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if less than 90 percent of the building is destroyed, then the building can be rebuilt at exactly the same square footage. In response to concerns expressed by Commissioner Debay regarding the removal of dwelling units or remodeling, Mr. Hewicker explained that two dwelling units can be converted into a single family dwelling, or a dwelling can be demolished to rebuild a new building. He said that if there is a legal nonconforming building which has been on the site for many years that the property owner wants to remodel and if the dwelling requires structural alterations that requires a modification, then the Modifications Committee can deny the request in which case the property owner can build a dwelling unit to conform. Mr. Hewicker stated that if a property owner purchased two dwelling units on an R -1 lot, and said dwelling units were 59 years old, he would be • informed that one of the dwelling units may have to be torn down in one year unless the City Council waived the requirement. -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES � AaNO�� June 23, 1988 so�y�`�9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. Ayes * * * * * * 659 and related Environmental Document subject to the Absent * findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following 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. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Amendment No 659: Approve Amendment No. 659 and recommend adoption by the City Council subject to • the following findings: 1. That the adoption of the subject amendment will remove the economic hardship for property owners who are faced with the mandatory removal of dwelling units which were legally established, but are now nonconforming due to a subsequent rezoning of their property. 2. That the amortization provisions of the Municipal Code have not proven to be necessary for the removal of nonconforming dwellings inasmuch as in most situations such structures are removed before they become 60 years old. 3. Since the adoption of the amortization provisions, the City has not required any property owner to remove a nonconforming dwelling unit under said provision. 4. That the elimination of the amortization provisions will allow for the approval of proposed zone changes which are necessary so as to bring local zoning into consistency with the General Plan and The Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, without imposing unreasonable hardship on existing development. -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES G� 0 �Co � s ' 9yG O�m 9i June 23, 1988 ° % �q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 665 (Continued Public Hearing) item No.9 A565 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to establish a "Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Approved Facilities" Zoning District; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Said amendment also establishes permitted uses within the district as well as provisions for permitted building heights, building floor area, off - street parking and setback requirements. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. Ayes * * * * * * 665 and related Environmental Document subject to the Absent findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAO, 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. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Amendment No. 665: Approve Amendment No. 665 amending Title 20 of the Municipal Code establishing a "Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities" District, and recommend to the City Council approval of this amendment. • -27