Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/1986Presen L] Ayes : Abstai Ayes Abstai: Ayes Abstaii All Ay, i COMMISSIONERS yGt"t�G0 n 9y�� �y f� O iyy0 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ;ALL INDEX t x x x x x x x All Planning Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary * x E L E C T I 0 N O F O F F I C E R S — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Election of The Planning Commission conducted its annual Election Officers of Officers, with results as follows: Chairman Person nominated Commissioner Turner for the office of Chairman. There being no other names presented for consideration, the nominations were x x x x x closed. Commissioner Turner was elected to the office z x of Chairman. Chairman Turner nominated Commissioner Koppelman for the office of First Vice - Chairman. There being no other names presented for consideration, the x x x x x nominations were closed. Commissioner Koppelman was i x elected to the office of First Vice - Chairman. Commissioner Koppelman nominated Commissioner Winburn for the office of Second Vice - Chairman. There being no other names. presented for consideration, the x x x x x nominations were closed. Commissioner Winburn was i elected to the office of Second Vice - Chairman. Commissioner Winburn nominated Commissioner Eichenhofer for the office of Secretary. There being no other names presented for consideration, the nominations were °S closed. Commissioner Eichenhofer was elected to the 1 office of Secretary. COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes Abstain MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Minutes of June 19, 1986: Motion was made to approve the June 19, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes.. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. a * yr Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that the applicant has requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 3214, to establish a restaurant facility at 4695 MacArthur Court, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1986, and staff is recommending that Item No. 7, Use Permit No. 3216 and Resubdivision No. 745 (Extension), a four unit residential condominium located at 311 Carnation Avenue, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1986. Motion I IxI I I I I I Motion was made to continue Items No. 5, Use Permit No. 3214, and Use Permit No. 3216 and Resubdivision No. 745 Al yes meeting. Motion voted lon, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission x re x Amendment No. 636 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend the Planned Community Development Standards for the Corona del Mar Homes Planned Commu- nity (Summer Wind) so as to allow individual property owners to use the side yard of an adjoining lot for parking purposes, landscaping, and the construction of pools and spas. LOCATION: Lots 1 -22, Block 531, and Lots 1 -14, Block 631, Corona del Mar, comprising a portion of the block bounded by Carnation Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Dahlia Avenue and Second Avenue, in the Corona del Mar Homes (Summer Wind) Planned Community. ZONE: • I I I I I I I OWNER: Gfeller Development Co., Inc., Tustin Same as applicant -2- INDEX Minutes of 6 -19 -86 Request for Item No.l A6 36 (Resolution No. 1138) Approved COMMISSIONERS y G t^ t^ G n yF, 9y�� � CC o 4yy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX Commissioner Winburn and Commissioner Merrill advised that they have read the Planning Commission minutes dated May 22, 1986 regarding the subject application. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Philip Bettencourt, 242 West Main Street, Tustin, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of :the applicant. Mr. Bettencourt discussed the concerns that several of the Summer Wind homeowners had that the application would compromise the rights that the homeowners have under the existing standards and under the CC &R's as to the utilization of uses that they shared in the easement areas. Mr. Bettencourt commented that the applicant has met with the homeowners and they have narrowed the issue. He said that the applicant is neutral regarding the application which gives the opportunity for consenting lot owners for utilization of the easement areas. Mr. Bettencourt said that the applicant supports the application regarding the latitude that the homeowners would have in terms of the landscaping improvements. He said that • all of the Summer Wind homes have been sold. Mr. Bill Manrow, 516 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Manrow said that he is also representing Mr. Jim Kirkpatrick, 517 Dahlia Avenue. He said that they are not clear as to what is being done regarding the side easements; however they do not want the adjacent neighbor's spa equipment attached to their property. Mr. Manrow explained that he and Mr. Kirkpatrick have equipment and pipes attached to their properties which have not been approved by them. Mr. Hewicker clarified how the Amendment would allow a spa to be installed into the side easement area only with the written approval of the adjacent property owners. He explained that the City does not want to be a party to the CC &R's but that there would be zoning regulations to restrict specific items such as spa equipment from the easement areas. He commented that when the property owner applies for a building permit, improvements would be allowed Summer Wind property owners in the easement areas only with the approval of the adjoining property owner who has that land in fee. Mr. Hewicker stated that improvements that would be allowed in the easement area would be landscaping, • irrigation pipes, spas and pools. This amendment would also prohibit air conditioning equipment in the easement areas. -3- COMMISSIONERS _ PyF� oy CC O 4 s' Fm vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker pointed out that when a building permit was issued to the property owner adjacent to Mr. Kirkpatrick's property, the plans did not show any intervening property line in the side yard area. Mr. Manrow commented that the property lines have recently been staked. Chairman Turner explained that the CC &R's are a private document and that they are recorded against the property, and that when an applicant comes to the City to apply for a permit, the application must conform to the Planned Community text. Mr. Mike Watson, 607 Dahlia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Watson stated his concern regarding fixtures built on the property without consent of the property owners. He asked that there be a good set of rules to follow, because the property owners do not want to sue their adjacent neighbors. In response to questions posed by Chairman Turner, Mr. Watson replied that he has reviewed staff's recommendations for the Planned Community text and that the property owners who have read the CC &R's understand the regulations. He commented that a planter box under three feet has been built on his side easement. Mr. Hewicker advised that landscape features under three feet in height do not need a building permit. Mr. Bettencourt reappeared _before the Planning Commission. He said that the applicant concurs with staff' that spa and air conditioning equipment should not be permitted in the easement areas. He emphasized that the drainage systems provided on the lots must be protected under the CC &R's, that no one is allowed to disturb the drainage, and that all the property owners or the applicant can enforce the CC &R's. Mr. Bettencourt advised that Mr. Watson and Mr. Kirkpatrick have adjacent landscape improvements that have an attachment to their dwellings. He said that the CC &R's preclude any attachment to an adjacent dwelling when exercising landscape rights, and that they should pursue those actions to protect their interests. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out the four page letter relating to the CC &R's provided to each purchaser during escrow. He noted that the applicant receives a signed receipt from every property owner in receipt of the CC &R's, and • that the property owner is made aware of the existence of the rules. Mr. Bettencourt explained that the -4- COMMISSIONERS y G t^ t^ G 4p o Gy N �f F - 9y�9 Gy ff90 �yS �� 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 R, ALL INDEX developer did not contract or facilitate any landscape or pool improvements, and that the property owners must contract their own improvements. In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner, Mr. Bettencourt replied that a homeowner's association has not been established. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Bettencourt replied that the spa that was attached to the Kirkpatrick property has been terminated, and he described how a spa /reflecting pool attachment was developed between the model homes. Mr. Manrow reappeared before the Planning Commission in rebuttal and said that the homeowners have been misrepresented by , the applicant regarding spa requirements. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman commented that modifications • have been made that the spa installations in the easement areas must have the consent of the adjacent property owners, and that the spa equipment cannot be in said setback area. She stated that the regulations can now be understood by the homeowners as well as Motion x enforced by the City.. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 636 (Resolution No. 1138) and forward to the City Council. Chairman Turner commented that he would support the motion. He said that he is sensitive to the enforcement of the CC &R's, and that the City has made an attempt to solve the problem. Motion was voted on to approve Amendment No. 636 All Ayes (Resolution No. 1138), MOTION CARRIED. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 10, 1986 INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3207 (Continued Public Hearing) I item N0.2 Request to permit the construction of a 3- story, 2 -unit UP3207 residential condominium development and related garage spaces on property located in the R -4 District. The R829 proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow portions of the proposed structure Continued and balconies to encroach 16 feet into the required 20 to foot front yard setback area. 8_7 -86' U llu B. Resubdivision No. 829 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to create one parcel of land for residential condominium development where one parcel now exists. I I I I I LOCATION: 1he9suthedly8 side of West Avenue, on t located Bay • between 18th Street and 19th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -4 APPLICANT: John C. Marvick, Newport Beach . OWNER: Ron Pruessing, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Marvick, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Marvick pointed out the front yard setbacks for the subject application, and he commented that the applicant met with the adjoining property owners after the applicant submitted the drawings to the City due to the interest of time. Mr. Marvick said that the property owners indicated that they wanted the applicant to revise the plans more than what has been revised by the applicant. Mr. Marvick opined that the setbacks need to be mitigated on the three levels of the project. . Mr. John Newcombe, 1821 West Bay Avenue, appeared .before the Planning Commission and he commented that he is also representing Mr. Anthony Lier, 1819 West Bay Avenue. Mr. Newcombe stated that the property owners S1' COMMISSIONERS yG�^t^G0 o mGmy9mm�,�AAy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX had concerns that the applicant submitted the revised plans prior to the neighbors meeting with the applicant, and that the plans were submitted without the property owners' input. He said that the property owners felt that the applicant's revised plans of the first two floor setbacks were fair; however, even though the Coastal Commission does not require a string line approach to establish required front yard setbacks that the requirement would be a good idea, and that the dwelling unit at 1821 West Bay Avenue has a greater setback than as stated in the staff report. Mr. Newcombe asked if there are pilaster setback requirements. Mr. Hewicker replied that pilasters are subject to the same setbacks as the structure. Dr. Richard Zahn; 1819 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. In rebuttal to the staff report which states that "the primary views to the bay for Lot 9 is to the north and northeast which would not be affected by the subject project ", Dr. Zahn replied that his property is on the west, and that they would lose the view of the bay on the northwest. He pointed out that West Bay Avenue is a diagonal street, and that within a 25 foot width his property varies from 1 to 3 feet. ' Dr. Zahn cited that the compromise between the applicant and the property owners is a one foot difference on the third floor, and he described how his property would lose the view on the third floor, and that the applicant would have a 1800 panoramic view. Commissioner Person advised that the Planning Commission is not permitted to protect private views from private property. He said that the purpose to continue the subject application was to enable the interested parties to come to a compromise so that the Planning Commission would not be faced with the decision of trying to protect someone's private view. Mr. Hewicker withdrew to the plans on display and indicated the "string line" setbacks and the setbacks that the property owners hoped to achieve. Mr. Joe Loutes, 1823 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Loutes stated that the concerned property owners' "standards" need to be heard, and they believe that the applicant's "standards" are unreasonable. He said that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to provide -7- COMMISSIONERS '�C � A sf. �` 'I• tj %may �9 �y4y °oA °y f'yyi� Na 9if F Fy y 9 y ffgy� C� y Ash 4 vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROC ALL INDEX something that is consistent with the community, and he stated his concern regarding the applicant's unwillingness to compromise. Commissioner Person advised Mr. Loutes that the Planning Commission was not aware that the applicant submitted the plans to the Planning Department prior to meeting with the adjacent property owners. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Loutes . replied that the property owners concur that the third floor setback is what they are presently concerned about, and that they are looking for conformity within the neighborhood. Mr. Tom Hyams, 217 - 19th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that previous property owners have encroached into front yard setbacks with permission; however, the subject application exceeds what the neighbors have previously been approving. He asked that the front yard setback conform with what has previously been established on adjoining lots. Mr. Randy Jones, 1829 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant should conform with the precedent that the neighbors have set regarding setbacks. Ms. Sally Power, 1821 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the application does not conform to the neighborhood. Mr. Lindsay Morrison, 1817 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Morrison stated his concerns regarding the nonconformity of the setback to the adjoining properties, and the wing walls on the ground floor. He said that the subject development would be a detriment to the community and would downgrade the street because the plan does not conform. In rebuttal to the aforementioned testimony, Mr. Marvick reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marvick explained that the subject property was not given a front yard setback and the adjoining property was given a setback, that the applicant wants to conform to the existing buildings, but the applicant does not want to be forced into building to the same setback, that they are attempting to compromise with the property owners, and that the applicant did not deliberately try to deceive the adjoining property -8- COMMISSIONERS A .o m9999 Z `y vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX owners by submitting the plans to staff prior to the joint meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person regarding the loss 'of square footage of the revised plan, Mr. Marvick replied that the applicant was more concerned with the setbacks; however, he said that they would be willing to compromise to reduce one additional foot to a total of two feet on the third floor. Mr. Marvick explained where the additional reduction of one foot could be conceivable. Mr. Marvick cited that the applicant has questioned how the buildable area could be determined after the setback area is revised. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, explained how a buildable area is determined, and he commented that the applicant could maintain the same buildable area as in the original plan. The public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman Turner opined that there were circumstances that occurred that brought 'this situation about, and if the adjoining neighbors wanted to encroach into their own setback areas they would need the City's approval to do so. Commissioner Person opined his difficulty in mentally redrawing the third floor setback, and he stated his concern that the applicant and the adjoining property owners did not meet prior to the applicant submitting the drawings to the Planning Department so that they could come up with a compromise. He commented that the application could be continued for two weeks or be denied. Motion x Chairman Turner made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3207 and Resubdivision No. 829, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and suggested a condition stating that the setbacks of the project will be consistent with adjoining properties, and that the applicant submit a plan to the Planning Department for review and approval, or the Planning Department could submit the plans to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Person commented that the condition would • state that the application come back to the Planning Commission; however the application could be continued -9- COMMISSIONERS yA Z� ��F•ZG'N BAP A 9Z y G Z N 9i � At^ BZ �Z vZ 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX to the July 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion followed regarding the continuation of the application so that the interested parties could meet in order to come to a compromise. Commissioner Kurlander said that the applicant should have met with the property owners before the plan was submitted to the Planning staff. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she was also hesitant in redrafting the plan as to what would be best for the applicant, and that she would Motion support the motion to continue this item. Chairman Withdrawn Turner withdrew his original motion. Motion I Commissioner Person made a motion to continue Use - Permit No. 3207 and Resubdivision No. 829 to the July 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he feels that the applicant should concentrate on the third floor setback, and he asked if two weeks would be a reasonable time for continuation. Mr. Marvick reappeared before the Planning Commission, • and he agreed to continue the item for four weeks to the Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 1986. All Ayes Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x x A. Use Permit No. 3210 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to permit the construction of a two unit UP3210 residential condominium development and related car- ports on property located in the R -2 District. 8830 AND Approved B. Resubdivision No. 830 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide the subject property into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: Lot 9, Block 736, Corona del Mar, located at 709 Jasmine Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Jasmine Avenue, between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, in Corona del Mar. • ZONE:. R -2 -10- COMMISSIONERS ym�9 ?� Ay cr'a y �� nl 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX APPLICANTS: Donley /Bennett, Architects, Tustin OWNER: Fergus C. McKay, Corona del Mar ENGINEER: Robert McCumsey, Newport Beach Commissioner Merrill stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. The public .hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Greg Bennett, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bennett stated that the applicant objects to Condition No. 8 of Resubdivision No. 830, regarding the existing 4 foot wide sewer easement crossing the property be increased to a 10 foot wide easement. Mr. Bennett stated that the applicants had been advised by the Utilities Department that the sewer easement requirements for the subject property would maintain a 4 foot by a 7 foot vertical clearance easement over the existing easement; however, after the applicant submitted the completed plans to the Planning staff the applicants were informed by the • Public Works Department that the plans did not conform to the City's requirements. Mr. Bennett commented that there have been physical hardships relating to the difference of opinion by staff, and he asked that the original easement requirement be approved. Mr. Hewicker explained that there may have been a miscommunication between the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. Mr. Robert McCumsey, a representative of the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. McCumsey submitted photos of the subject sewer easement and explained the. construction of the easement on the adjacent properties. He said that there is a thirty year old sewer line, and that they were told that if the sewer line did need to be replaced that the line could *run down the alley. Chairman Turner pointed out that after he had viewed the subject property he was aware of the inconsistencies of the easement on the adjoining properties. Commissioner Koppelman commented that the Public Works Department must give a definitive answer regarding the • sewer easement, and that she would not second guess without input from them. -11- COMMISSIONERS asses s'o �i� Ai^ Fy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX Mr. Bennett stated that a 10 foot wide easement with an 8 foot high vertical clearance would be better for servicing; however, the applicants did not request the 7 foot high vertical easement, they only agreed that the 7 foot easement would be reasonable. He said that the applicants would be willing to negotiate with the Public Works Department. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3210 and Resubdivision No. 830, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including revised Condition No. 8 stating "that the existing 4 foot wide sewer easement crossing the property be increased to a 10 foot easement, or a lessor width as approved by the Public Works Department; that all footings for the proposed building be outside the sewer easement and below the elevation of the existing sewer main; that the structure located above the sewer easement be a minimum of 8 feet clear from finish grade over the sewer, or a lessor vertical clearance upon • approval of the Public Works Department; and that the existing sewer main be reconstructed within the limits of the property unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department." - Ayes xxx xxx Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. - Absent - x '-+- USE PERMIT NO. 3210 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as 'a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project complies with all applicable standards for development in the district in which the property is located. 3. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 4. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the resi- • dential condominium development. -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3210 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That a minimum of two carport spaces (including one tandem space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 830 shall be fulfilled. 4. That the proposed development shall not exceed 3,322± sq. ft. of gross structural area. 5. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. RESUBDIVISION NO. 830 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. 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. -13- COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONDITIONS: INDEX 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements shall be constructed' as required by ordinance and the Public Works Depart- ment. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety shall be provided in order to guaran- tee satisfactory completion of the public improve- ments if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral con- nection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. S. That all vehicular access to the property shall be taken from the adjacent alley. 6. That the existing parkway between the sidewalk and curb be brought up to grade along the Jasmine Avenue frontage. 7. County Sanitation District Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. S. That the existing 4 foot wide sewer easement crossing the property be increased to a 10 foot easement, or a lessor width as approved by the Public Works Department; that all footings for the proposed building be outside the sewer easement and below the elevation of the existing sewer main; that the structure located above the sewer easement be a minimum of 8 feet clear from finish grade over the sewer, or a lessor vertical clearance upon approval of the Public Works Department; and that the existing sewer main be reconstructed within the limits of the property unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10 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. -14- COMMISSIONERS d?�99y y Gy � in \0\O � o f iygn V y y C 1'y C y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3212 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of a two unit UP3212 residential condominium development, related garages, and an open parking space on property located in the 8831 R -2 District. Approved AND B. Resubdivision No. 831 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide the subject property into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: A portion of Lots 1 and 3, Block 640, Corona del Mar, located at 601 Narcissus Avenue, on the northwesterly corner of Narcissus Avenue and Third Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: J. Jeffery Morris, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Ron Miedema, Costa Mesa William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, requested that Resubdivision No. 831, Condition No. S "that all vehicular access to the property shall be taken from the adjacent alley" be deleted because there is no alley. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Schooler commented that the subject application conforms to all of the City's standards and is an aesthetic addition to the City. He stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit' "A "; however, he asked if the applicant had to obtain the approval of the City Council for the proposed driveway approach as requested in Condition No. 4 of the use permit. Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant would have to obtain the approval of the City . Council. -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'k, III Ms. Kathy Schwab, 3212 Second Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Ms. Schwab regarding the subject property's setbacks, Mr. Hewicker explained that setbacks are measured from the property lines and not from the back -of -curb or street. Mr. Jim Arnold, neighbor adjacent to subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Arnold stated his concern regarding the easement on his property which would be required to install the utility and sewer lines. He said that there will be an open trench in his. yard for a period of time and he was concerned about the safety of his children. Commissioner Kurlander inquired about the installation of the sewer and utility lines on the adjacent property. Mr. Hewicker explained that inasmuch as the developer is building a two unit condominium and each of the units is required to have its own sewer line, they have to excavate a portion of the trench in order to install the second sewer. Mr. Schooler commented that the builder will contact Mr. Arnold to make the open trench area as safe as possible and that the work would be done within a timely manner. Mr. Leonard Morgan, 600 Narcissus Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Morgan stated his opposition to the application by commenting that the condominium units do not conform; they will be detrimental to the neighborhood; that they will be setting a precedent; that the neighborhood is becoming impacted rapidly with traffic; and that the area should be zoned for only one single family dwelling on each lot. In response to Mr. Morgan's concerns, Mr. Hewicker explained that the neighborhood is zoned R -2; that a duplex is permitted on each lot; that one dwelling unit is permitted for each 1,000 square feet of land area; and that the builder is requesting two dwelling units, on portions of two lots. Commissioner Kurlander pointed out that two dwelling units are permitted on each lot in the R -2 District. Mr. Schooler reappeared before the Planning Commission and commented that the 4,000 square feet proposed on • the subject lot is over the requirement required by the City for two units. -16- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ms. Nancy Felt, 619 Narcissus Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Felt emphatically objected to the application because of the precedent being set in the neighborhood to build more than one unit on each lot. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that the area is in an R -2 District and that Ms. Felt could construct a duplex on her property without coming to the Planning Commission. Ms. Felt objected to the idea. Ms. Mary Barrett, an adjacent neighbor, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Barrett asked with concern if the area could be rezoned from R -2 to R -3. She stated her concerns regarding the lack of parking in the area created by renters, and she said that the density created by the condominiums is detrimental to the neighborhood. Chairman Turner replied that the area could not be rezoned from R -2 to R -3. The public hearing was closed in connection with this item. • Commissioner Koppelman commented that she is aware of the concerns that the residents have that Old Corona del Mar is converting to duplexes and condominiums, and that these concerns do cause problems. She pointed out that legally the Planning Commission and City Council cannot change what is happening in the R -2 zoned area; however, if the community wanted to downzone to R -1 the only way would be a Specific Area Plan to be instituted by the City Council to rectify this situation. Motion I I I I I IxI I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3212 and Resubdivision No. 831, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the deletion of Condition No. 5 in the resubdivision. Commissioner Person stated that he would support the motion on the basis that the applicant could build duplexes without coming before the Planning Commission, and instead the applicant is proposing the two unit residential condominium project. All Ayes I I I I I I I I Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • -17- MINUTES July 10, 1986 INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y�C� c^9 ��G� coAOy July 10, 1986 G9� N \Irr 177 �nFy y� ��9� �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL ALL INDEX USE PERMIT NO. 3212 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project complies with all applicable standards for development in the district in which the property.is located. 3. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 4. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the resi- dential condominium development. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3212 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That one garage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. In addition, one on -site open parking space shall be provided for one of the dwelling units. 3. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 831 shall be fulfilled. 4. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Council for any proposed driveway approach which exceeds 20 feet in width measured at the bottom of the approach. -18- COMMISSIONERS Gyms! t^ 9�Fy Cy !l9yc iyy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROLIFEALL INDEX 5. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24' months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. RESUBDIVISION NO. 831 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City., all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be' recorded. 2. That all improvements shall be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Depart- ment. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety shall be provided in order to guaran- tee satisfactory completion of the public improve- ments if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral con- nection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. Deleted. 6. That the existing block wall be removed from the public right -of -way and concrete sidewalk be -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA °V't��G�go``g, July 10, 1986 GyNgC'o �" AIM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL ALL INDEX constructed along the Third Avenue frontage; that the tree damaged sidewalk be reconstructed along the Narcissus Avenue frontage and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That an access ramp be constructed per City Std. =181 -1, at the intersection of Narcissus Avenue and Third Avenue under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. County Sanitation District Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 9. That a 10 foot radius corner cut -off be dedicated at the intersection of Narcissus Avenue and Third Avenue. 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. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Use Permit No. 3214 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to establish a restaurant with incidental UP 3214 service of on -sale alcoholic beverages on property located in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Continued LOCATION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 84 -716 to 7 -24 -86 ( Resubdivision No. 786), located at 4695 MacArthur Court, within a portion of the block bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -20- COMMISSIONERS Motion All Ayes • • MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Motion was made to continue this use permit item to the July 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3215 (Public Hearinq) I Item No.6 Request to permit the establishment of an auto washing UP 3215 and auto detailing facility on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Approved Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at 2430 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile.Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: John Mueller, Newport Beach OWNER: Nelson Grey Trust, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, recommended that Condition No. 5 be revised to state "that all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that the wash area drain shall be equipped with a trap for the collection of car wash residue." Mr. Laycock explained that this condition is a standard requirement; therefore, the condition is not at the discretion of the Building Department for approval or denial In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Laycock advised that the applicant will be washing automobiles only, and not steam cleaning the automobiles. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff contacted a State of California official and was advised that the trap that the applicant is proposing to use would not be similar to hazardous tanks. Commissioner Eichenhofer pointed out that automobile detailers sometimes steam clean engines, and she asked if the applicant could guarantee that he would not -21- COMMISSIONERS y 76G Ac^ m7� 9 qf9 ,oy GN9�yFF`y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX steam clean on the premises. Mr. Hewicker replied that if the applicant intends to detail on the premises then the Planning Commission could condition the use permit so as not to allow that activity on the premises. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Mueller, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mueller commented that the premises consists of an existing carport and drain, and that the drain will be modified to conform with the City's standards. He said that the carport covering will hang two feet beyond the wash area to keep out the rain water. Mr. Mueller pointed out that the engines will be washed with a degreasing soap and then rinsed, and that he does not have a steam cleaner. He further stated that he has two automobile detail mobile units that will not be on the premises during the day and that in the evening the mobile units will be parked in the garage. He said that the garage area is where the office and automobile detailing will be. In response to questions posed `by Commissioner • Kurlander, Mr. Mueller replied that the purpose of the mobile units will be to wash and wax automobiles at customers' homes and offices in their driveways or parking lot. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Mueller replied that the automobiles are washed and waxed on private property, and in response to Chairman Turner, Mr. Mueller replied that occasionally he will hose the engines down and the residue will go into the public street. Commissioner Person pointed out that the residue goes into the storm drain and then into the bay which becomes a serious problem. Mr. Mueller responded that there are many mobile detailers in the City who do the same thing. Mr. Mueller referred to Condition No. 7 regarding the one -hour fire wall, and responded that the walls are made of cement block. Discussion followed between Commissioner Person and Mr. Hewicker regarding how the mobile units could be regulated to prohibit the wash water from going into the City's storm drains. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Mueller responded that the majority of his business is from the mobile units that go out to customers on a weekly or monthly -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX basis. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that Mr. Mueller is currently parking his mobile units at his home on a residential street. In response to Commissioner Kurlander's concern regarding boat detailing, Mr. Mueller replied that he does not detail many boats and that the mobile units go to the boats in the water. He said that he does not clean boat engines. Commissioner Merrill commented that if notified, the Police Department can cite a mobile unit that is washing on the City's streets. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of the applicant using the mobile units on site to wash automobiles. Mr. Mueller responded to Chairman Turner that he would agree to a condition that would prohibit washing and detailing automobiles on site using the mobile units. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I 1xi I I I I I Motion was made to approve. Use Permit No. 3215 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including revised Condition No. 5 as previously stated, and the addition of Condition No. 12 that specifically prohibits the washing of automobiles on site by the mobile units. Commissioner Person stated that he would support the motion; however, he pointed out that he may possibly ask the City Council to prohibit or regulate the mobile All Ayes units within the City. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems with the proposed development. • 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3215 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the.health, safety, peace, morals, -23- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS. 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, except as noted below. 2. That all automobile and boat detailing shall be conducted within the building. 3. That all automobile washing shall be conducted under a covered canopy. 4. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly mariner. 5. That all *wash water shall drain into the sanitary • I I I I I I I ( sewer system and that the wash area drain shall be equipped with a trap for the collection of automobile wash residue • 6. That the automobile wash facility shall be designed in a manner that will prevent rain water from entering the sewer system. This will require the provision of a roofed washing area and curbing along the perimeter of a raised surface of the wash facility. The exact design shall be reviewed And approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 7. That a one -hour fire wall be be provided on the northwesterly side of the building if required by the Building Department. 8. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 9. That a minimum of 12 offstreet parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the existing and proposed uses. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. -24- MINUTES July 10, 1986 INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 10. 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. 11. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. That the washing and waxing of automobiles on site by the mobile units shall be prohibited. A. Use Permit No. 3216 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to permit the construction of a four unit UP3216 residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -3 District. The proposal R745 also includes a request to allow a portion of the development to exceed the 24 foot basic height limit on Continued the front one -half of the lot in the 24/28 Foot Height to Limitation District, and to exceed the 28 foot basic 7 -24 -86 height limit on the rear one -half of the lot in the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation District. AND B. Resubdivision No..745 (Extension) (Discussion) Request for an extension of a previously approved resubdivision that would create a parcel of land for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: A portion of Block D of the Corona del Mar Tract, located at 311 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly corner of Carnation Avenue and Bayside Drive, northwesterly of Seaview Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX APPLICANT: William Feldner, Orange OWNERS: Jack E. Bazz and Chester Houston, Garden Grove ENGINEER: M. Petyo & Associates, Inc., Irvine Motion Motion was made to continue this use permit and resubdivision to the July 24, 1986, Planning Commission All Ayes Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x x Use Permit No. 3217 (Public Hearing) I Item No.8 Request to permit the establishment of a take -out UP3217' restaurant facility on property located in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to Approved waive all of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 11, Section 4, Balboa Island, located at 220 Marine Avenue, on the easterly side of Marine Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and Park Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Cinnamon Roll Experience, Carlsbad OWNER: Jax Beverly Hills, Los Angeles The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Roy LaForge, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. LaForge commented that the purpose of obtaining the use permit is to be able to dispense fountain soft drinks and other complimentary beverages. Mr. LaForge stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Conditions No. 6, 8, and 9 regarding_ trash. Mr. LaForge advised that he and an adjacent merchant could share a half dumpster that would be located behind the building where the occupant of the apartment parks his Volkswagen automobile. He explained that his trash consists of empty paper goods that would be disposed of in plastic lined bags. Mr. LaForge opined that the dumpster would be more attractive than 32 gallon trash containers. -26- COMMISSIONERS • Motion CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the area designated for the dumpster would be an encroachment into a required rear yard setback adjacent to the alley, which is prohibited, and that the area had been previously utilized without approval. Mr. LaForge explained that there is minimal space within the store for a trash compactor, and he advised where the small trash receptacles would be located. Mr. LaForge stated that his alternative to a dumpster would be to use trash containers whereby the trash would be picked up twice a week. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. LaForge outlined the locations of the trash receptacles within the public area, and he further described the locations of all of the trash receptacles. He said that the trash consists mostly of empty bags; that the coffee is contained in small packets, that there is not much cardboard trash, and that the soft drinks are delivered in cylinders and stored in the storage room. Ms. Elsa Stoddard, 321 Marine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission expressing her concerns regarding the number of Marine Avenue take -out restaurants and the serious litter problem on the sidewalks. She opined that there is not enough parking and she said that to continually waive the parking restrictions compounds the problem. Ms. Stoddard stated that the merchants on Marine Avenue are asking guidance from the Planning Commission so as to have a fair mix of businesses. Commissioner Winburn briefly discussed with Ms. Stoddard the possibility of meeting with the merchants on Balboa Island regarding the requested guidelines. The public hearing was closed at this time. x Commissioner Eichenhofer made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3217 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Kurlander recommended required parking for the employees, and Chairman Turner pointed out that the take -out restaurant is not a point of destination. Commissioner Kurlander also suggested the steam cleaning of sidewalks. -27- MINUTES July 10, 1986 'fl,III ± COMMISSIONERS yy yfpZC S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROW ALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker pointed out Condition No. 11 requiring that the sidewalk be swept, vacuumed, or washed. Commissioner Kurlander said that he would not support the motion because parking should be required for the employees. Ayes x x x Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3217 subject Noes x. to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION x x x CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as • they pertain to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and the required parking spaces will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structure has been in existence for many years. 4. The* approval of Use Permit No. 3217 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental 'to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevation. 2. That no cooking or preparation of food other than baked goods and beverages shall be permitted in the take -out restaurant facility unless an amended use permit is approved by the City at a later date. Said amendment could require the addition of kitchen exhaust fans, washout areas for trash containers, and grease interceptors. -28- COMMISSIONERS • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. That operation of the facility shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 4. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utili- ties, parking lot .illumination and required parking spaces shall be waived. 5. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 6. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside the build- ing. 7. That all exterior lighting and signs shall conform to Chapters 20.06 and 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Marine Avenue, adjoining properties, and the alley. 9. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the take -out restaurant facility. 10. That all trash, including compact trash bags and recyclable containers, shall be stored within the building until they are to be picked up. 11. That the sidewalk on Marine Avenue shall be kept clean and regularly maintained. Said sidewalk shall be swept, vacuumed or washed in such a manner that any debris or waste water does not enter the storm drain system. 12. That no seating shall be provided in the facility unless an amendment to the use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 13. 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, -29- MINUTES July 10, 1986 INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y� pP F,p �9G9 go ¢y July 10, 1986 G9Z�n �O �i� to y Z ��9y �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL ALL INDEX causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 14. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. * R Off -Site Parking Agreement (Public Hearing) Item No.9 Off -Site Request to approve an off -site parking agreement so as to allow the construction of two combined residential/ Parking commercial developments on adjoining lots where a Agreement portion of the required off - street parking spaces of one of the office uses overlaps the common interior Approved property line. Said proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required • office parking. LOCATION: Lots 9 and 10, Block 225, Section A, Lancaster's Addition, located at 2816 and 2818 Newport Boulevard, on the easterly side of Newport Boulevard, between 28th Street and 29th Street, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Russell E. Fluter' OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Russ Fluter, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fluter stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Off -Site Parking A Agreement subject to the findings and conditions of #s Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -30- COMMISSIONERS G AF ^�G EGA C' m9 9 Py m .6 Gy 9� e^y vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The proposed off -site parking area is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed office building inasmuch as the parcels are contiguous. 4. That parking on said off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 5. That the two parcels are in common ownership. 6. The proposed use of tandem parking spaces for the office uses 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 consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That an off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council guaranteeing that a portion of each of 2 (two) parking spaces in tandem shall be provided at 2818 Newport Boulevard for the use of development at 2816 Newport Boulevard for the duration of the office use at 2816 Newport Boulevard. 2. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the attached plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 3. That office development at 2818 Newport Boulevard • shall not exceed 500 square feet of net floor area. -31- COMMISSIONERS is • MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. That a minimum of 6 offstreet parking spaces (including 3 tandem spaces) shall be maintained for the office uses on the property at all times. 5. That two garage spaces (including one tandem space) shall be maintained for each of the two dwelling units at all times. 6. That the proposed development shall not exceed the building height permitted in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. This provision will require the removal of proposed parapet walls, along both exterior side property lines that exceed the permitted height. 7. That any mechanical equipment or trash containers shall be screened from view from Newport Boulevard, adjoining properties and the alley. 8. That only one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each lot. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of, the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That the residential and commercial portions of the development 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. 12. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 13. That the existing deteriorated curb and sidewalk be removed and replaced with new 6 inch concrete curb and full width concrete sidewalk along the Newport Boulevard frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 14. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. -32- INDEX COMMISSIONERS • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 15. This modification to the Zoning Code shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.81.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1133 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R -1 District which exceeds the basic 24 foot height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 188 -1 (Resubdivision No. 750), located at 2301 Pacific Drive, on the southwesterly side of Pacific Drive, between Acacia Avenue and Begonia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. 20NE: R -1 APPLICANT:. Richard L. Cooling, Newport Beach OWNER: Harry E. Westover, Newport Beach The public hearing was 'opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Richard Cooling, applicant and architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cooling stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 2, "that 337± square feet of the structure be removed so that the maximum height of. the structure will not exceed 35 feet above the existing grade... ". Mr. Cooling described the slope of the proposed structure from Pacific Drive to Bayside Drive, and how a portion of the structure would exceed the height restrictions. Mr. Cooling explained that the structure will be constructed 6 feet into the lot to decrease the structure height to 41 feet rather than 28 feet allowable,' and he said that staff has said 35 feet above the existing grade would be acceptable. Mr. Cooling further described the proposed grading design of the structure. Mr. Cooling requested that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". -33- MINUTES July 10, 1986 INDEX Item No.10 V1133 Continued to 8-7-86 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Mr. John Bettingen, 2308 Pacific Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bettingen expressed his concerns to the Planning Commission that the structures on the bluff side of Pacific Drive be restricted to one story, that the height of the proposed structure could allow for some flexibility so that the applicant and the neighbors could come to a compromise, that the height could be injurious to the property improvements in the area, and that the proposed' development could set a precedent in the area. Mr. Jim Bridges, 2307 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bridges stated that he is in support of the application and the design of the dwelling. Mr. Chris Street, 2235 Pacific Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. In rebuttal to "the findings to establish grounds for a variance ", Mr. Street said that there is a series of canyons moving across the property, and that the applicant build according to the • lay of the land; and the design of the structure will have an impact on his property. Mr. Street presented a brief history of his property, and he said that the builder, Mr. Cox, his father -in -law, chose to stay within the height limitations. Mr. Street suggested a meeting with the applicant so that'he may present his concerns. Mr. Hewicker advised Mr. Street that the current 24 foot height limit was put into affect in 1972, and prior to 1972, the height limit was 35 feet. Mr. Hewicker commented that he was not aware of what the height limits were to the east and west of the proposed site at the time that they were built. Mr. Street pointed out that the requested height is 45 feet as opposed to 24 feet in the Zoning Code. Mr. Harry Westover, 1612 Harold Place, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Westover presented a brief history of the subject property and he said that he grew up on the property site. In rebuttal to previous testimony, he replied that the neighbors across the street are only interested in preserving their views; that the proposed structure would be 16 feet above the sidewalk; that the neighbors • I I I I I I I I across the street will not see the alleged violation of the permitted height; and that the impact would only be on Mr. Street's property. Mr. Westover explained that -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY-OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX there is a distance of 30 feet between the front property line and the curb line of Pacific Drive, and adjacent properties are built to the front property line; however, the proposed plans maintain the required 5 foot front yard setback, and so the proposed development maintains a 35 foot setback from the curb line of Pacific Drive. Mr. Westover suggested that if the proposed structure could also encroach to the front property line, than the height of the dwelling could be lowered. Mr. Cooling reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cooling described how the property could be brought up to the front property line which would reduce the proposed structure height to 36 feet, and with minor variations the garage could be lowered by 2 feet. Discussion followed between Chairman Turner and Mr. Cooling regarding how the plan could be revised to lower the single family dwelling by 5 feet. Mr. Hewicker commented that if the applicant so desired to modify his plans to a zero front yard setback and if the Planning Commission so desired, that the application would have to be renoticed. Mr. Cooling asked if the zero front yard setback request could become a condition of approval. Further discussion followed between Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney and Mr. Hewicker, regarding the need to renotice the application, and Ms. Korade explained that because of the height and encroachment into the front yard setback area, that the application would need to be continued and the public hearing renoticed. Chairman Turner advised that the public hearing could be continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the plans. Mr. Cooling said that he would agree to continue the application to August 7, 1986. Ms. Dorothy Westover, 2305 Pacific Drive, adjacent to the subject property and sister of the property owner appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Westover stated that her desire as well as the desire of their mother and father was that she and her brother would live on adjacent properties. She said that if her brother is prohibited from developing his property that they will sell their property together and let someone • I I I I I I I else build whatever they want to on the property. She proudly stated that her property is in the same condition as it was in 1922. -35- COMMISSIONERS ym�y �,p F�G9 Amy G9 yin NO 9i 9 �^ Fy 9y F9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated her desire that the application be continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the structure and to meet with Mr. Street. Motion 2C Motion was made to continue Variance No. 1133 to August All Ayes `7, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * * x The Planning Commission recessed at 10:55 p.m. and reconvened at 11:05 p.m. a * x Variance No. 1134 (Public Hearing) Item No 11 Request to. permit the construction of a single family V1134 dwelling on property located in the R -1 District which exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also Denied` • includes a request to exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. LOCATION: Lots 6 and 13, Block C -33, Corona del Mar, located at 2717 Shell Street, on the southwesterly side of Shell Street between Fernleaf Avenue and Way Lane In China Cove. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Donna and Ernest Schroeder, Corona del Mar OWNER: Robert M. Newell, San Marino AND Variance No. 1135 (Public Hearing) Item No.12 Request to permit the construction of a single family V1135 dwelling on property located in the R -1 District which exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Denied Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also • includes the acceptance of an environmental document. -36- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 'k AASj. July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL ALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots 5 and 12, 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 OWNER: Robert M. Newell, San Marino In response to Chairman Turner's recommendation that Item No. 11, Variance No. 1134, and Item No. 12, Variance No. 1135, be heard concurrently because they are tied together, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, explained that as testimony is given during the public hearing that the speaker should stipulate as to which Variance is being addressed for the record. Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Beauchamp, applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission and agreed to accept a combined public hearing on the subject Variances. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, referred to a petition that was signed by eight China Cove property owners and she pointed out that staff has responded to each of the concerns relative to the Negative Declaration by submitting a supplemental staff report. Ms. Temple explained the contents of an exhibit that was prepared in conjunction with the tidelands in the China Cove area, and the property ownerships as they presently exist. She pointed out that there are a number of privately held lots which are bayward of the shoreline, and said that these lots are generally owned by the owners of the adjacent upland lots. Ms. Temple commented that the lots which are between Rock Street and Wave Street, and the lots which are between Wave Street and the line of mean high tide, consist of approximately nine lots which are in private ownership, and that the Assessor's Parcel Map indicates that these lots are held by a person named Gertrude Ralphs of McCall Idaho. She said that staff understands that this person is a. relative of the persons who currently own the subject four lots which comprise the two • subject Variances. -37- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Beauchamp, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission with reference to Variance No. 1135. Mr. Beauchamp expressed the applicants desire to build on the subject property. Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the two applicants. Mr. Jeannette said that Variance No. 1135 is a replacement of the China House and the issue is that the dwelling exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit; Variance No. 1134 is a vacant site and the issues were that the proposed dwelling exceeded the 1.5 times buildable area which has been revised to the permitted 1.5 times buildable area, and that the structure exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit; and the possible sensitivity of the tidelands. Mr. Jeannette referred to the sentiments regarding the China House, a landmark building, he outlined what would be required to bring the China House up to the • City's Building Code requirements, and that only the roof would remain after the total remodel of the dwelling was completed. Mr. Jeannette said that to preserve the building to save the roof is a very difficult way to remodel the structure. Mr. Jeannette explained. that the applicants have been sensitive to the neighbors, the environment, and they have had meetings with some of the neighbors in the China Cove area regarding what the neighbors' needs would be relative to the proposed structures, and that they have tried to adapt to those needs. Mr. Jeannette referred to Variance No. 1135_, and said that the proposed structure would be 3,862 square feet and the garage 180 square feet; Variance No. 1134, the proposed structure would be 3,941 square feet and the garage 880 square feet. Mr. Jeannette outlined the characteristics of the proposed structures from the plans on display, and he described how the subterranean garages are proposed. He said that there is no intent to disturb the marine habitat. Mr. Jeannette explained how the setbacks of the proposed structures were planned so as to preserve the views of the neighbors. • I I I I I I I I Mr. Jeannette explained that the purpose of the Variances is that there is a depression in the center -38- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX of the site. Mr. Jeannette explained from the plans how the structures would be constructed relative to the height limits on the site. Mr. Jeannette referred to Variance No. 1135 and said that the architecture would be Cape Cod style, and the architecture of Variance No. 1134 would be Country French. Mr. Jeannette referred to a meeting that the applicants had with the neighbors, and said that there was concern regarding the removal of the rock. He commented that the intent would be to remove the rock by rock splitting which would be a more mild way of removing the rock. I I I I I I ( In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner, Mr. Jeannette replied that the elevation of the garage floor of Variance No. 1134 is exactly the same as Variance No. 1135. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding Variance No. 1134 as to the highest point in relationship to the China House, and she asked if the height would be the same as Variance No. 1135? Mr. Jeannette replied that Variance No. 1134 is proposed to be three feet lower because the land drops as the land goes toward the west. He explained that the elevation of the living room of Variance No. 1134 is 11 feet and Variance No. 1135 is 13 feet. He said that the existing roof line of the China House is approximately 12 feet higher than the applicants' highest point of the proposed residences. Mr. Carl Schrenk, project engineer and geologist, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schrenk said that the idea of rock splitting is to use small diameter borings done by a diamond core bit to obtain the depth needed to. fracture the rock, excavations or borings down to depths of six feet or seven feet for the retaining wall footings. He said that after the series of small diameter holes are drilled then a mandrel is put down the hole and is operated with hydraulic fluid to break the rock apart. Mr. Ernie Schroeder, applicant for Variance No. 1134, • appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that Mr. Beauchamp approached the Schroeders to purchase the 1 111111 China House property so that they could build their two -39- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Z G 0V, �G Fpd n July 10, 1986 `A. ,oti GyN9f N` �y�� Gy ffvo ;yy�T Ah �9'y �.D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL ALL INDEX homes. He pointed out that he has a signed petition from a number of residents in the China Cove and Corona del Mar area who are in favor of the application, and that early China Cove property owners have commented that they are also in support of the application. Mr. Schroeder said that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" of the staff report. He commented . that originally the plan was to build 1.55 times the buildable area for a four car garage because there is no off - street parking in China Cove; however, the plans have been reduced to 1.5 times buildable area, and that an area within the proposed garage will be converted into a carport. Mr. Robert Newell, one of the family owners of the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Newell said that the China House was built in 1930 by his great - grandmother, Sarah Lindsay and her husband, who passed the property along to their daughter, his grandmother, Gertrude Browner, who passed the property ownership to her only daughter, Mrs. Ralphs and her three children of which he is the son. • He said that there are presently seven owners with his mother being the principal owner. Mr. Newell said that the China House has been listed with several real estate agents since 1983, and he commented that the owners are anxious to sell the property. Mr. Newell stated that he supports the buyers' proposals as set forth, that they are known in China Cove, that they are sensitive to the needs and concerns of the neighbors and to the residents of China Cove, and although the homes are good sized they provide for significantly lower roof lines than the existing China House. He commented that he is sensitive to other people's concerns and the "odd- looking" structure set among the modern residences that now surround the dwelling. He commented that the two homes are proposed to be constructed on four lots, that this would not be an unreasonable use of private property when the proposed open space that is provided for is six times what is required by the Zoning Code. Mr. Gordon Bally, 2733 Shell Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that he signed the Shell Street petition along with all of the property owners and residents of Shell Street who have expressed opposition to the Variances. He said that he is opposed primarily because of the height; two houses where there was one house; and the size of the houses. Mr. Hally -40- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH read and submitted a letter to the Planning Commission dated July 10, 1986, stating the Hallys' objections to the Variances, and he concluded by asking if there is anything extraordinary to the two properties, and that he disagrees with "exceptional circumstances ". Mrs. Jill Hally, 2733 Shell Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Hally referred to the aforementioned petition signed by residents on Shell Street, and said that they are still not in agreement with all of staff's responses to the Negative Declaration as follows: l.g. "exposure to geologic hazards ".. Question: Couldn't necessary excavation and demolition procedures produce substantial hazards to geologic substructure thus weakening and endangering surrounding structures? 13.a. "Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement "..the vehicle capacity of the street and • intersection at Way Lane and Shell Street is at maximum on weekends, holidays and summer during peak hours. We have tourists, sightseers, visitors to residents, service and delivery vehicles to contend with plus a great concern about SAFETY and access by fire, police and paramedics or other emergency vehicles. Many times, with existing conditions, access is blocked. • 13.b. "Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking".. Shell Street is a very short street with only four houses on each side. There are only four public parking sites, already a limitation. 18. "Aesthetics "..while the architectural design is to be commended, two massive structures will result in obstruction of an existing scenic vista now open and available to the public. 21.a. "Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment ? "..it will eliminate public vistas and views of the waterfront and a unique segment of tideland. -41- MINUTES July 10, 1986 INDEX COMMISSIONERS • `I u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 21.b. "Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals ?..What are the goals? Do you want to pave it over or retain its integrity? Mr. Gerald Thompson, . 2701 Shell Street, adjacent neighbor to the China House for over 24 years, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson pointed out that there are issues in the project such as the tidelands and the Coastal Commission that he wished to expand upon: he commented that he has received permits from the City and the Coastal Commission to install the rocks in front of his dwelling unit. He said that the water goes onto the Schroeder property during low and high tides: that where there used to be water there is now sand, and that in one corner area of the proposed Variance No. 1134 there is currently sand but 20 years ago there would have been water seven feet to eight feet lower than today. Mr. Thompson described how the Coastal Commission staff had once recommended denial to his application requesting the rocks, which was later approved by the Coastal Commission, and that the Fish and Game Agency informed him that he was removing sand which was against the rules and that he would have to pay mitigation fees. He commented that the proposed plans for Variance No. 1134 is the same situation; however, the applicants are intending to remove the sand. Mr.'Thompson said that the main objection to the Variances would be the magnitude of the structures; that the structures would be downgrading the neighborhood; and they would impact the area. In rebuttal to previous testimony, Mr. Thompson said that he had been advised that splitting rock would be impossible, and that the China House is on solid bedrock. In response to questions ,posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the Shell Street petition, she asked if the intent of the petition was to request an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Thompson replied that, he has been advised by an attorney that the public has access to all land between low water and mean high water, and if they don't have access to the water than an Environmental Impact Report is mandatory, and that he was advised that if the property is of historical significance to a community that would also require an EIR. -42- MINUTES July 10, 1986 INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Commissioner Person asked Ms. Korade if she could expand upon those statements. Ms. Korade replied that if a building has a historical significance to the extent that demolition of the building would be a significant environmental impact, then an EIR would be necessary instead of a Negative Declaration. Ms. Temple commented that the City determines if the project would have a significant affect on the environment, and that decision is discretionary which holds true. for historical structures, wetlands and other environmental affects.. Chairman Turner asked if the Planning Commission could determine historical value? Ms. Korade described the policy procedures, and in conclusion she summarized that the Planning Commission could determine if the demolition has a significant environmental impact, and the Planning Commission could require an EIR. I ( ( I ( ( ( I Discussion followed between staff and the Planning • Commission regarding historical significance, the governmental agencies that could be involved, and historical documentation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Person if the property owners of a historical structure could tear down the building without coming before the City or the Coastal Commission, Mr. Hewicker replied that they would not have to come before the Planning Commission but they would have to come to the City for a demolition permit, and Ms. Korade replied that she did not know if the Coastal Commission would be concerned about the historical value. In reference to Variance No. 1135, Commissioner Koppelman referred to No. 20 of the Negative Declaration, "Archeological /Historical" which states "yes" to "will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building ", and asked if that establishes that the China House is a historical site? Ms. Temple replied that "yes" indicates that on the staff level, staff recognizes that the China House is of some historical interest and that staff proposes a mitigation measure. Ms. Temple suggested potentials • that could be implemented regarding the China House. Commissioner Person and Ms. Korade discussed the possibility of a facade easement. -43- COMMISSIONERS yGFt^GOA¢, �9T99 q'% �9 vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROIL ALL INDEX Mrs. Donna Schroeder, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that she has the same feelings that the owners have regarding the China House; however, the structure does not have the same significance that it once had in China Cove. Mrs. Schroeder emphatically stated that the owners are anxious to sell their property, and the buyers are very anxious to purchase the property to construct their homes. Mr. Tom Thomson appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Fred Thomson,2727 Shell Street, and read a letter written by the Thomsons dated July 10, 1986. The letter states opposition to the Variances because the double house project would be detrimental to the quality of life in China Cove; that the dwellings would be inconsistent with the present neighborhood and would be detrimental to property values in the area; that the excavating and chipping of rock and coral formations underneath the house would have a damaging effect on the neighborhood; and that the community would be better served by being • conservative in the density of the build -out. Mr. Jerry Long, real estate broker for the sellers, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the two proposed structures would be the "highest and best use of the land ", and he said that the present owners of the property have every right to sell their property. Commissioner Person pointed out to Mr. Long that the proposed development consists of 10,000 square feet of _ floor area in two structures on a 60 foot wide piece of property. He said that the main issues are the Variances to exceed the basic height limit and the bulk of the buildings. Mr. Long replied that there has been much discussion about building two residences on four lots, that the zoning is consistent for the two residences, and that the two Variances are justifiable requests. Ms. Korade commented that the issue before the Planning Commission is just the Variances to exceed the basic height limit. Chairman Turner commented that the Variances before the Planning Commission would apply regardless of who owns the property. Mrs. Christa Long, real estate broker for the sellers, • appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Long -44- COMMISSIONERS yAa F f F o I 0Zyff1011 q F Am + y y ° , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROLIFEALL INDEX testified that she had shown the China House to many potential buyers but because the structure would need to be remodeled there were never any offers. Mr. Brion Jeannette reappeared before the Planning Commission stating that he has been informed that the Coastal Commission does not have provisions to preserve historical structures; that every effort has been made to adjust the views and that he would be submitting two revisions of the plans in conjunction with Variance No. 1135 to preserve those views; and that to keep the historical name of China Cove he suggested constructing a pagoda. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Person said that given the size of the lots, the request for Variances on the two building sites are inappropriate based on the height as well as Motion x bulk of the structures. Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1134 and subject to the findings for denial. At this time, the Planning Commission did not • have findings for denial. Commissioner Koppelman reasoned that she would support the motion to deny the Variances as follows: that there are no extraordinary circumstances inasmuch as the lots each contain over 4,000 square feet of land area; Mr. Jeannette previously indicated that he could build houses on the lots without the Variances; that there is no necessity for the Variances for the applicants to enjoy'substantial property rights; the granting of the applications could be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the area because there could possibly be many problems in splitting the rock to construct the subterranean garages. Commissioner Person pointed out that his motion does not mean that he does not like the design of the project or the layout, but that he does believe that the structures are too large and too tall for those particular lots. Mr. Jeannette reappeared before the Planning Commission in rebuttal, and said that 1.5 times buildable area is allowable. He commented that the applicants could go • directly to the Coastal Commission with revised plans that would be within the City's height requirements, but the revisions would obstruct more views. -45- COMMISSIONERS 0 C5- Gp Z� NO 9i �9 t� Fy t^9 9y c^9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX Discussion followed between the .Planning Commissioners regarding an Environmental Impact Report and if the Negative Declaration is sufficient. Chairman Turner referred to Mr. Jeannette's rebuttal, and said that the applicants could bypass the City and go to the Coastal Commission, and he questioned if anything would be gained by continuing the application to consider an environmental document to try to control the development of the property within the City. In response to Commissioner Person, Mr. Hewicker said that plans submitted by Mr. Jeannette during the public hearing reduced the length of the building in conjunction with Variance No. 1135, that would provide more of a view from Shell Street to other areas of China Cove. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she hated to see the demolition of the China House, but that it would be idealistic to maintain the structure forever. She said that the land is concave because of the hole in the center of the site and that is what necessitates the Variances. She said that she would like to see the bulk of the structure smaller, but the 1.5 times the buildable area is what the Planning Commission had been approving in China Cove. She said that she would not support the motion. Ms. Temple said that upon the Planning Commission's testimony for denial her recommended findings for denial would be as follows: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district, inasmuch as the structure could be designed within the 24 foot height limit at 1.5 times the buildable area on the site that contains over 4,000 square feet of land area. 2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, since the single family dwelling could be • redesigned to conform to the existing contour of the site, and be within the required 24 foot height limit. -46- COMMISSIONERS 0 y G t^ In G Qo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX 3. That there may be problems in splitting the existing rocks in conjunction with the construction of the subterranean parking structure. 4. That the building is too high in relation to the structures in the immediate area. 5. That the granting of such application will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property' of the applicant and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood, in that approval would result in a structure which is more visually imposing than other structures in the area. 6. That the findings are based upon facts contained . in the public record. Commissioner Person agreed to the recommended findings for denial. Ayes x x x x x x Motion voted on to deny Variance No. 1134, MOTION CARRIED. Noes x FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district, inasmuch as the structure could be designed within the 24 foot height limit at 1.5 times the buildable area on the site that contains over 4,000 square feet of land area. 2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, since the single family dwelling could be redesigned to conform to the existing contour of • the site, and be within the required 24 foot height limit. -47- COMMISSIONERS y 0 C+ 'f' Gy Ji yf t� _ �y�9 oy ff O �yyo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX 3. That there may be problems in splitting the existing rocks in conjunction with the construction of the subterranean parking structure. 4. That the building is too high in relation to the structures in the immediate area. 5. That the granting of such application will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood, in that approval would result in a structure which is more visually imposing than other structures in the area. 6. That the findings are based upon facts contained • in the public record. Motion x Motion was'made to deny Variance No. 1135, based on the Ayes x x X x x x same findings for denial of Variance No. 1134. Motion Noes x voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary 'circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to ' in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district, inasmuch as the structure could be designed within the 24 foot height limit at 1.5 times the buildable area on the site that contains over 4,000 square feet of land area. 2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, since the single family dwelling could be redesigned to conform to the existing contour of the site, and be within the required 24 foot . height limit. -48- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES July 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. That there may existing rocks construction of structure. be problems in splitting the in conjunction with the the subterranean parking 4. That the building is too high in relation to the structures in the immediate area. 5. That the granting of such application will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood, in that approval would result in a structure which is more visually imposing than other structures in the area. 6. That the findings are based upon facts contained in the public record. A. Initiation of General Plan Amendment 86 -2 (A) (Discussion) Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to reclassify approximately 3.6 acres of land, located between Placentia Avenue, Superior Avenue and the northerly City boundary from "General Industry" to "Multi- Family Residential ". AND 'B. Initiation of General Plan Amendment 86 -2 (B) (Discussion) Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to reclassify the property located at 3014 west Balboa Boulevard from "Two - Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial ". L-M1111111� -49- INDEX Item No.13 GPA86 -2(A) GPA86 -2(B) Amendment No.10 to LCP /LUP Approved COMMISSIONERS y G•�tn�l��G��tin pN 99� ,pY G. p'Lt� NO 9i �q tw �2 F9 qy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 10, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX C. Initiation of Amendment No. 10 to the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Discussion) Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the property located at 3014 West Balboa Boulevard from "Two - Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial ". INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that Ayes x x x x x x all of the requests for the General Plan Amendments be No initiated. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x * * * A D D I T 10 N A L B U'S I N E S S:. Additional Business The Planning Commissioners continued the discussion of the buildable area limitations for the China Cove Area Continued A x x x x x x x of Corona del Mar to the Planning Commission Meeting of to No July 24, 1986. 7 -24 -86 * * * A D J 0 U R N M E N T: 1:00 a.m. Adjournment PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION =50-