Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1976COMMISSIONERS m D m; r m m m ; < Regular • m A m Place: m Time: ROLL CALL 2 Date: Present Absent 0 Motion Ayes Absent E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Meeting City Council Chambers MINUTES 7:00 P.M. July 15, 1976 ,ur,cY X X X X X X I EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Senior Planner Shirley Harbeck, Secretary Item #1 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 37 from the AMENDMENT "U" District to the "P -C" District, and to establish a Plan- 1TO. 456 ned Community Development Plan and Development Standards for "Holiday Harbor," and the acceptance of an environmental REMOVED document. FROM CALENDAR Location: Portion of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Sub- division, located at 800 -900 East Coast I Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, westerly of Jamboree Road, adja- cent to Newport Dunes. Zone: Unclassified III Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant X Planning Commission removed this matter from the agenda at X X X X the request of the applicant. X X *** * * * * * ** Item #2 Request to subdivide 16.14+ acres into 6 parcels for commer- cial development in accordance with the Planned Community RESUB- DIVISION Development Standards for "Holiday Harbor." NO. 504 Location: Portion of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's REMOVED FR M Page 1. CALENDAR COMMISSIONERS % m I m a c m a= ; • r ; a w ROLL CALL 2 Motion Ayes Absent 0 Motion Ayes Absent 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Julv 15, 1976 UJnGY Subdivision, located at 800 -900 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, westerly of Jamboree Road, adjacent to Newport Dunes. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Simpson- Steppat, Newport Beach X Planning Commission removed this matter from the agenda at th X X x X request of the applicant. X X Item #3 Request to permit 3 flag poles, 44 feet in height, in front of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce building, in the i I FLAG POLE REQUEST 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. I APPROVED Location: Parcel 1 of Resubdivision 469, located at 1470 Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. Zone: A -P Applicant: Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Paul Ruffing, 610 Newport Center Drive, architect for the applicant, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report. Commissioner Heather voiced concern that this request was being heard "after the fact" since the flag poles were alread installed. X Motion was made that Planning Commission approve the request X X X X subject to the following condition: X X 1. That development be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. In view of the number of recent requests for flag poles to encroach into the height limit, Planning Commission requested that the ordinance dealing with flag poles be reviewed at a future study session for possible amendment. Page 2. ff COMMISSIONERS • r T N X p m N ROLL CALL 1 July r] Motion Ayes Absent • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 15, 1976 Item #4 Request to subdivide 12.780 acres into 52 lots for single FINAL MAP family residential development, one lot for landscaping TRACT and common area, and Lot A for a utility easement. 8427 Location: A portion of Block 96 of Irvine's Subdivi- APPROVED sion located on the southerly side of San CONDI- Joaquin Hills Road between Marguerite TIONALLY Avenue and Crown Drive North, in Jasmine Creek. Zone: P -C Applicant: M. J. Brock & Sons, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Larry Olin representing M. J. Brock & Sons, 5757 Forest Lawn Drive, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommendations. He answered questions of the Commission relative to marketing and sales. X Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend to the X X X X City Council approval of the Final Map of Tract No. 8427, X X subject to the following condition: 1. That all applicable conditions of approval for the amende tentative map of Tract No. 7967 be fulfilled. Agenda Items No. 5 and No. 6 were heard in reverse order; however, for the sake of continuity, are written in numerical} order. Item #5 Presentation of Environmental Impact Report and consideration AMENDMENT NO. 458 of Specific Area Plan No. 5 for Mariners' Mile. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach CONT. TO OCT. 7 Senior Planner Talarico reviewed the history of the planning effort and the staff report with the Commission. He briefly reviewed the documents entitled "Specific Area Plan" which sets policies and which would be adopted by City Council Resolution and the "Specific Plan District" which would be adopted by ordinance and replace existing standards for the Page 3. COMMISSIONERS m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES o J u uly 15, 1976 Qn rAll q �un4v area. He also presented the draft Environmental Impact Report which was prepared by Owen Menard & Associates. Owen Menard, 454 W. Bayside Road, Claremont, appeared before the Commission and introduced the various people who worked on the Environmental Impact Report. Ron Smothers, Senior Planner with Owen Menard & Associates, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the process used in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. He commented on the EIR's evaluation of the plan, including suggested changes which would bring the plan into balance, and impacts which will occur as the plan is implemented. He advised that their study revealed existing parking require- ments and height limitations restricted development to a figure much less than the two times buildable allowed by the Specific Area Plan. Also, in view of the policies and desire characteristics of the area, the development standards should be expanded in terms of maintaining views, aesthetics or characteristics, signing, development incentives, etc. He commented on the uses proposed, parking standards and parking problems in the area. As to the impact on traffic, Mr. Smothers advised that a .5 times the buildable area was a more realistic figure for development and would be more in line with the Voorhees Study prepared for the City several years ago. He commented on the circulation system around Avon and the proposal for a loop system all of which would create somewhat of a dilemma in that land values may be increased which in turn could have an effect on economics and accelerate development. Following his presentation, Mr. Smothers answered questions of the Commission and clarified portions of the draft EIR. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. i Barry Bolin, 2223 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commission and voiced concern with the height limitations. He felt that the existing height limits were more than adequate and in order to further preserve views of the bay, from the cliffs above and the Ensign View Park, suggested that development on the south side of Coast Highway be adjacent to the highway with parking near the bay. D. T. Daniels with Ardell Investment Company, 2077 W. Coast Highway, appeared before the Commission to comment on the plan and questioned the definition of "substantial marine uses." He concurred with the statement in the EIR that the • property owners should be reimbursed in connection with building modifications required due to the.widening of Coast Highway and added that the property owners should also be reimbursed for the cost of the land as well. He also felt that the City should give consideration to the suggestion on page 123 of the EIR relative to specific use designations. Page 4. COMMISSIONERS y� D � � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • tit p m MINUTES x N Qou csi Jul v 15. 1976 Robert Sangster, President of the Newport Heights Association appeared before the Commission and concurred that further study was needed on the plan and offered to participate in the studies. He questioned what impact the additional traffic along Riverside and Avon would have on the Heights; felt that reconsideration should be given to the requirements for no side yards on the south side of Coast Highway in order to preserve "windows to the bay;" and requested that further study and consideration be given to the uses allowed on the commercial side of the highway. Hank Mohle, Traffic Consultant, appeared before the Commissio to continent on the projected traffic into Newport Heights and advised that approximately 12% of the additional traffic would be oriented in that direction and disburse in basically the same volume as presently exists. He felt that if the specific area plan allowed no more than 1/2 or .5 times the buildable area for development, the traffic would be in keeping with the adopted City's Circulation Plan. Carrie Slayback, resident on Riverside Avenue, appeared before the Commission and voiced concern with the height . limit and the traffic flow along Riverside. Staff advised that the plan does not allow for any increase in height over that which is already allowed in the area. Staff also advised that with an increase in the growth and use of the area, traffic will be increased proportionately and would bring some additional traffic onto Riverside. At this point, height limitations were briefly discussed and Commissioner Agee commented on the trade -offs available, i.e. a solid line of buildings with no windows to the bay as opposed to taller buildings on less ground area with more open space between the buildings. Alvin Teuteberg appeared before the Commission to continent on his proposal for a parking structure on the City owned property. Judy Waitman, 2001 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commissio and requested clarification of the disposition of the church property. She was advised by the Staff that the property was owned by the City and would ultimately be developed as part of the Ensign View Park., Dorothy Napkie, 411 Riverside Avenue, appeared before the Commission and voiced concern with the traffic and questioned the effect the taxes. of specific area plan on At this point, Planning Commission discussed the draft EIR. Page 5. COMMISSIONERS 'A VA • ROLL CALL 0 Motion Ayes Absent 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T Y Y N G m m 9 I x F r N JulY 15, 1976 MINUTES pmvcC Commissioner Agee commented that parking was the controlling factor in the development of the area and more study and consideration should be given to such things as parking structures and joint use of parking. He also commented on the widening of Coast Highway and did not feel widening would ever be accomplished because of the cost involved. He felt that a possible flexibility in the height limitations should be given further consideration in order to determine whether there would be alternate trade -offs which may be of benefit to the community. Commissioner Balalis felt that the existing height limits were adequate, especially in view of the considerable amount of work which went into the establishment of the existing ordinance. However, other trade -offs could be given consider- ation, such as an increase in density in exchange for setback from the bay or provisions for additional view corridors from Coast Highway to the bay. Commissioner Hummel felt that the height problem would be solved to some extent by the type of uses allowed. As to the parking structure, he felt that economics would dictate the desirability and need for such a structure and the matter of convenience and location would be considered when the structure was reviewed. Planning Commission discussed density and concurred that .5 was more realistic than two times the buildable but that some alternatives or incentives should be considered in connection with setbacks from the bay. Staff advised that all the comments and questions brought up during the hearing and discussion would be considered in connection with possible revisions to the Environmental Impac Report. X Motion was made to continue the public hearing to October 7, X X X X 1976. X X Item #6 Consideration of redesignating the southerly portions of AMENDMENT NO. 459 Lot C of Tract 919 to R -1 from C -1 -H. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach APPROVED Community Development Director Hogan reviewed the location of the subject property and advised that it was topographic- ally separated from the remaining portion of Mariners' Mile Page 6. COMMISSIONERS >p > a m m CITY •. N X p ro o July 15, 1976 ROU CAI z OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES \rn y because of the steep slope and cliff. Staff felt there would be no environmental impact on either the surrounding area or the development of the remaining Mariners' Mile area and recommended that the zone be changed and the property no I longer be considered as part of the Mariners' Mile area. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Clarence Herbert, 243 Ocean View Avenue, appeared before the Commission and questioned the subject property as to number of lots being considered and access to the property. Staff advised that no subdivision was being proposed and that the subject property was owned by an adjacent property owner on Cliff Drive. Mr. Herbert requested that the Planning Commis- sion consider dividing the lots on Ocean View which back up to Riverside Avenue. Staff advised Mr. Herbert of the proper procedure to follow relative to subdivision requests and that consideration of such a request could not be given at this time because of the legal requirements for publication. John Jakosky, 1718 Terrapin Way, appeared before the Commis- sion and voiced concern that commercial uses would have to secure use permits because of their close proximity to residential zones. Staff advised that restaurants and their related uses and outdoor lighting of tennis courts were the only uses which would require a use permit and the change of zone should have no more effect on the commercial district than that which presently exists. Alvin Teuteberg, 2601 W. Coast Highway, appeared before the Commission and questioned the reason for separating this property from the Mariners' Mile area. Community Development Director Hogan advised that the staff felt this property was not related to the Mariners' Mile area either physically or from a development point of view and consequently could be separated. Mr. Teuteberg advised that this change of zone would be in conflict with a proposal for a parking structure on which he was presently working. John Jakosky appeared before the Commission and questioned the use of residential property adjacent to commercial for parking as well as use of commercial property for parking adjacent to residential. Staff pointed out that residential property could be used for parking when located and serving adjacent commercial property provided a use permit was obtained, but that no use permit would be necessary for parking on commercial property. However, certain screening • and development requirements must be met separating the residential and commercial uses. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Page 7. COMMISSIONERS 91 La D M Y C ? ; to N ROLL CALL 2 Motion Ayes Absent Motion s nt CITY OF 10v 15. 1976 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES x Following discussion, motion was made to accept the negative x x x X declaration and recommend to the City Council that Amendment x x No. 459 be approved changing the zone from C -1 -H to R -1. I Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 P.M. and reconvened at 9:30 P.M. Item #7 Request for site plan review of a commercial building with SITE PLAN retail sales area on the ground floor and office space on the REVIEW NO. 1 upper floor in a Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted, and the acceptance of an offsite parking agreement for the required parking spaces. APPROVED CONDI- Location: Westerly 12.5 feet of Lot 17 and Lots 18, TIONALLY 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24,.Block 230 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach, located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, on the southeast corner of 30th Street and Newport Boulevard, in Cannery Village. Zone: C -1 and M -1 Applicant: Myrna M. and Francis M. Delaney, Newport Beach Owners: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Reed, Newport Beach Mr. Kenneth Gabriel, Newport Beach Dick Dodd, 1617 Westcliff, Architect for the applicants, Appeared before the Planning Commission to answer questions and pointed out that the artist's rendering indicated parking in the front, whereas, the plans and drawings indicate that parking will be to the rear with landscaping in the front, the latter being the correct.plan. Mr. Dodd advised of their agreement with the staff report and recommended conditions. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public portion of the discussion was closed. x Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following x x x x findings: x x 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and will not preclude the attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies. Page 8. COMMISSIONERS o v A m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • m A MINUTES N Qnu rs Julv 15. 1976 .n.x 2. The proposed development is a high - quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area... 3. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets and public facilities within the area. 4. The proposed development promotes the maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoining major thoroughfares of City -wide importance.. 5. The proposed development, subsequent to the approval by the Director of Community Development of detailed lightin , signing and landscaping plans and the applicants' modific - tion of said plans to comply with Section 20.02.030 (C) o the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach, will comply with all applicable standards of Section 20.01.070 (F) of the Newport Beach Municipal.Code. 6. The required off- street parking spaces on a separate lot • from the building site are justifiable for the following reasons: (a) The applicant has a long -term (seventy -five year) lease for the use of the off -site parking lot. (b) The subject parking lot is so located as to be useful to the proposed use. (c) Parking on the subject lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. and approve Site Plan Review No. 1, together with the accept- ance of an offsite parking agreement for the required parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: 1. That detailed landscaping, lighting and signing plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Develop- ment prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the proposed development shall be revised to comply with Section 20.02.030 (C) of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach (26/35 Foot Height Limit) prior to the issuance of a building permit. • 3. That an off -site parking agreement providing for a minimu of twenty -nine parking spaces and common ingress /egress and parking across all parcels comprising. the parking lot shall be approved by the City Council. Page 9. COMMISSIONERS • � T m m N ROLL CALL Z E Motion Ayes Absent • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 15, 1976 Item #8 Request to establish one building site and eliminate interior RESUB- lot lines where two lots and a portion of a third lot now I DIVISION exist so as to permit commercial- office development. NO. 527 I Location: Lots 24, 23, and westerly 20.5 feet of APPROVED Lot 22, Block 230, Lancaster's Addition to CONDI- Newport Beach, located at 2920 Newport TIONALLY Boulevard, in Cannery Village. Zone: C -1 and M -1 Applicant: Myrna M. and Francis Delaney, Newport Beach Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Reed, Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Commissioner Hummel questioned the disposition of two tall palm trees in the parkway on Newport Boulevard. Dick Dodd, Architect, 1617 Westcliff Drive, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant and advised that if the palm trees were on their property, they would be glad to let them remain as part of the landscaping. He also advised that the staff report had been reviewed and they concurred with the report and recommended conditions. X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following X X X X findings: X x 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2: That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivisio is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for.the proposed density of the development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Page 10. COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL 0 • I, rn m to CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH y t 3 3 w x p m � i July 15, 1976 MINUTES INDEX 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. i 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 527, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a fifteen -foot radius corner cutoff at Newport Boulevard and 30th Street be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach for public street purposes. 4. That all vehicular access rights to Newport Boulevard be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. 5. That curb and gutter and sidewalk be constructed along the 30th Street frontage, extending to the easterly line of the proposed adjacent parking area, (i.e., the west- erly 12.5 ft. of Lot 17 and all of Lots 18 through 24). 6. That the unused driveway approach from Newport Boulevard situated adjacent to the alley approach be closed up. 7. That a standard subdivision agreement, with accompanying security, be provided if it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a building permit before the require public improvements are completed. Item #9 Request to establish one building site and eliminate interior RESUB- lot lines where four lots now exist so as to permit interior alterations.to the existing structure. DIVISION NO. 526 Location: Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 230 of APPROVED Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach, located at 422 30th Street, in Cannery — N DI- TI LLV Village. Page 11. COMMISSIONERS qc D T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m ; < MINUTES m Qum reu July 15, 1976 au;nvy Zone: M -1 Applicant: Francis M. Delaney, Newport Beach Owner: Francis M. Delaney, Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. James Person, 215 E. Bay, Attorney for the owner and applicant, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommended conditions. Commissioner Balalis questioned the increased impact on traffic and parking and Mr. Person advised there would be none what- soever. Staff further advised that there were no parking requirements for a development of this nature in this particular district. Commissioner Balalis voiced concern with the traffic and parking problems in the area and commented on the need for a Specific Area Plan for Cannery Village. Staff advised that work had recently been initiated on the plan and as soon as the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan was completed, the . staff would proceed as rapidly as possible in getting the plan completed. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the follow - Ayes X X X R ing findings: Absent x X 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision i is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type.of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable:for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or • wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Page 12. COMMISSIONERS 'ra > m m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f 4 1 • m MINUTES N ROLL CALL i July 15, 1976 • INDEX 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 526, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at Villa.Way and 30th Street be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach for public street purposes. 4. That curb and gutter and sidewalk be constructed along 30th Street frontage. (The existing drive approaches shall be maintained). 5. That the existing curb inlet at the beginning of the curb return on Villa Way be repaired to the extent that it has been damaged by trucks maneuvering to use the loading dock. Said repair.shall be designed so as to withstand future wheel loads. 6. That a standard subdivision agreement with accompanying security be provided if it is desired to record the parcel map before the required public improvements are completed. Item #10 Request to permit additions to a single family residence with a nonconforming garage 19 feet 6 inches deep (where the Code requires 20 feet 0 inches) and a 1 foot 10 inch rear yard setback (where the Code requires 5 feet 0 inches). In addition, the new construction encroaches to 0 feet 0 inches in one side yard (where the Code requires a 4 foot 0 inch setback) and to 11 feet 4 inches in the front yard setback (where the Code requires that a 20 foot 0 inch setback be maintained). MODIFICA- TION NO. 1042 APPEAL APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Page 13. COMMISSIONERS to A m .m . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f ➢4� ; MINUTES RMI rAlI July 15, 1976 Location: Lot 12, Block 28, First Addition to Newport Heights, located at 444 Aliso in Newport Heights. Zone: R -1 Applicant: Ernest B. Adams, Newport Beach Owner: Ernest B. and Lynda K. Adams, Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan advised that the staff recommendations were based entirely on the technicalities of the Municipal Code and not whether the request would be an improvement to the property. He presented a new set of findings and conditions for consideration, should the Plan - ning Commission disagree with the original recommendations of the staff. Planning Commission discussed the request for the purpose of clarification. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. • Ernest Adams, owner and architect, appeared before the Commission in connection with this appeal. He felt that the request meritted approval because it has met with the approval of the neighbors within the immediate vicinity; the areas of encroachment are a necessary part of the design concept; the proposal is not contrary to the overriding intents and purposes of the Municipal Code and is in line with the goals and objectives of community planning in which setbacks are a means of implementation; the floor area and volume of the additions are small with respect to the areas they encroach upon; that the proposal was not a departure from the estab- lished street scene character of the neighborhood; and felt there were other developments in the area which had more of an intrusive impact on the neighborhood than his proposal. Mr. Adams presented slides in support of his request and compared his proposal to other properties in the neighborhood, especially as to impact on the street scene character. He commented on the existing wall which encroaches into the alley setback and advised that it was not as important to retain as was the design concept of the house and agreed to move the wall if required. Commissioner Agee acknowledged the fact that the design concept was interesting, however, he felt that the setbacks should be more in keeping with other properties in the • neighborhood and possibly the house could be redesigned in order to observe the setback requirements. Mr. Adams commented on the goals and purposes of setback Page 14. COMMISSIONERS qm> q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • N A MINUTES w ROLL CALL i July 15, 1976 requirements which consisted of open areas to allow for light air, ventilation, and prevention of fire spreading from one structure to another, and felt there was no conflict because the property was located on a corner and the areas of encroch ment were not in the interior setbacks. He advised that the parkways were excessive and it was his understanding that street widening was unlikely to occur. Commissioner Hummel was concerned with the amount of time the remodeling would be under construction should the request.be granted, and questioned arrangements for the storage of materials. Mr. Adams advised that he would like to be able to pour the slabs before the rainy season and begin the actual framing next year after the rainy season is over. He anticipated that the exterior portion of the remodel would be complete by the end of next summer. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. . Commissioner Heather questioned the prospects for installatio of sidewalks in the Heights and staff advised that sidewalks were a possibility but not a probability at this point in time. Commissioner Agee felt there was a possibility that although the design was unique, a precedent may be.set and in view of the City's policies regarding setbacks on nonconforming buildings, felt that the house could be redesigned to meet Motion X existing Code requirements. Therefore, motion was made that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Modifica- tions Committee and deny the appeal. The motion was discussed and Commissioner Hummel made I reference to a similar request which was approved in Big Canyon. He felt that this request would not detract from the values of surrounding homes; that it would not be contrary or detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood; and that corner lots had more of an advantage in their use. He commented on the front yard encroachment and felt that since the house was being oriented towards the side, circumstances were changed. Also, the alley encroachment was no worse than.other alleys in the City. He felt that the area was ready for redevelopment and people should not be discouraged. WS X Following discussion, the motion was voted on and failed. Noes X X X Absent X X Page 15. COMMISSIONERS VP � 9 m v C m � f � in 3 r1 • N � p in Qeu cell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 15. 1976 MINUTES Motion X A new motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X following findings: Noes X Absent X X 1. That the approval of Modification No. 1042 will permit a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permissible under existing regulations. 2. That the living room and bedroom wing additions have been designed to minimize the building volume and only occupy 13 to 20 percent of the required yard setbacks. 3. That the absence of sidewalk improvements on the south- erly side of Clay Street will provide an opportunity for a landscaped buffer 12 feet in depth between the existing and the proposed structure. 4. That the garage depth nonconformity is minor in nature and it is adequate to park two cars. 5. That the garage encroachment to the alley setback does not conflict with access to the opposing garage on the opposite side of the alley. • 6. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the u e of the property or buildings will not, under the circum- stances of the 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 welfa e of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of.thi Code. and grant the appeal of Modification No. 1042, subject to the following condition: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted, except that the wall adjacent to the alley shall be moved to conform with the required alley setback. Commissioner Agee voiced concern with what may be a change in policy in connection with setbacks and in particular those in the front yard, as well as use of corner lots, and advised that possibly some new guidelines should be established in this regard. Both Commissioners Heather and Hummel commented that the width of the street and parkway had an influence in this particular case. Page 16. COMMISSIONERS nQ m • ROLL CALL • A m � � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH N ° July 15. 1976 MINUTES „.- Item dill Request to construct a drive - through and take -out restaurant USE PERMIT NO. 1797 in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Location: Lot 15, Tract 7953, located at 4501 Jambore APPROVED CONDI- Road in Koll Center Newport. TIONALLY Zone: P -C Applicant: Colwell Ray Hornacek Okinaka, Inc., Tustin Owner: Don Koll Company, Newport Beach Staff presented the sign elevations to the Commission which were received subsequent to the distribution of the staff report. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Tim Strader, Vice President of the Don Koll Company, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommended conditions. Bob Hornacek, Architect, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the new prototype design of "Der Wienerschnitzel." He answered questions of the Commission rel.ative to signs. Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker reviewed the size of the various signs with the Commission as well as the location of each and advised that the proposed signs were, well within the requirements allowed for drive -up /take -out restaurants. He also reviewed the various uses of the surrounding properties. City Engineer Nolan advised that the driveway location had now been set to coincide with the original location as set forth on the tract map and therefore the recommended condi- tion pertaining to access was obsolete. Pat Allen of Landgon & Wilson, Architects, appeared before the Commission and confirmed the location of the driveway. Planning Commission discussed direct driveway access to Jamboree Road and it was pointed out that additional street right -of -way was dedicated by the developer specifically for a right -turn lane which would allow for the merging of traffi . There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Page 17. COMMISSIONERS DQ v a .m � m - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a m ; MINUTES • a � p m enu rs,l � - .bAv 15_ IQ7f, - I P n!E Motion X Following discussion of the request, especially as to Ayes X X X availability and required number of parking spaces, motion Absent X X was made that Planning Commission make the following find- ings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Development Standards and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate offstreet parking spaces and traffic circulation are being provided for the proposed development. 3. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to parking, walls and landscaping, will not be detrimental.to adjoining properties. . 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1797 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health,. safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of . persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1797, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved,plot plan and elevations. 2. That all landscaping and lighting shall conform to Chapter 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That the development standards related to walls, and a portion of the parking and signing requirements are waived. 4. That all signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. The proposed identification sign adjacent to Jamboree Road shall not exceed a height of 4 feet above grade. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent properties as well as from Jamboree Road. • 6. That a landscape plan shall be submitted.to and approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. Screened landscaping shall be required along the interior side Page 18. COMMISSIONERS DO y A M T C N X A f N ROLL CALL �2 CITY OF July 15, 1976 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INDEX property lines to buffer the restaurant facility from proposed adjoining commercial uses. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained. 7. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. There being no further business, Planning Commission adjourne the meeting. Time: 11:00 P.M. dR.. a E Off icio Secretary e t Beach Planning Commission Page 19.