The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/18/1991COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A\, PLACE: City Council, Chambers ldh TIME: 7:30 P.M. �� DATE: July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney W. William Ward, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary iChairman Debay introduced Barry Gross, who was recently appointed to the Planning Commissioner by the City Council. Election ELECTION OF OFFICERS: of Officers Motion Motion was made and voted on to nominate Gary Di Sano as All Ayes Chairman of the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. Di Sano Chairman Motion Motion was made and voted on to nominate Tom Edwards as Vice Edwards All Ayes Chairman of the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. vice Chair Motion Motion was made and voted on to nominate Norma Glover as clover All Ayes Secretary of the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. secretary x x a COMMISSIONERS \11 d�r� July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROTE CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, presented an acrylic sailboat engraved with the City Seal to commemorate Chairman Debay's reign as Chairman of the Planning Commission in 1990 -1991. Incoming Chairman Di Sano presented outgoing Chairman Debay with a bouquet of roses on behalf of the Planning Commission. x x x Minutes of June 20, 1991: Minutes of Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the June 20, 6 -20 -91 Ayes * 1991, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain x x Public Comments: Public Comments Chairman Di Sano recognized Chairman Debay as Chairman of the Planning Commission, 1990 -1991, and he thanked the Planning • Commission for giving him the opportunity to act as Chairman in 1991 -92. x x x Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda Mr. Hewicker reported that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 12, 1991, in front of City Hall. x x x Request for Continuances: Request for Mr. Hewicker requested that Item No. 5, Exception Permit No. 41, Continue be continued to the August 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting inasmuch as the applicant, John Howenstine, Inc. is redesigning a sign for Cano's Restaurant, located at 2241 West Coast Highway. He further requested that Item No. 6, Exception Permit No. 39 be continued to the August 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant, Young Electric Sign Company, additional time to provide accurate plans to reflect the precise location of the proposed monument sign to be located at 3417 -3475 Via Lido, in 2- COMMISSIONERS .4 d ,� �d July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDEX the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center. Item No. 9, Use Permit No. 1727 (Amended), ALNI Enterprises, Inc., applicant, property located at 4248 Martingale Way, regarding a request to change the operational characteristics of a restaurant, has been removed from calendar inasmuch as the applicant has been unable to obtain the necessary off -site parking agreements for a portion of the proposed operation. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 5 and No. All Ayes 6 to the August 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, and to remove Item No. 9 from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. x x x Resubdivision No. 960 (Public Hearing) Item No.1 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land 8960 for a two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approves LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 241, Canal Section, located at 4110 River Avenue, on the northeasterly comer of River Avenue and 42nd Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Kam Foy Yee and Siu Loong, Santa Ana OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Kam Foy Yee, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. notion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 960 �Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. MOTION CARRIED. -3- COMMISSIONERS \01 o -o � �� ee � • y� r♦ July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch • iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That a 5 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of 42nd Street and River Avenue be dedicated to the public. • 6. That the displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk and drive apron improvements be reconstructed along the River -4- COMMISSIONERS O 10 '� �cn 0 ele \ July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROTL CALL INDEX Avenue frontage; that any cracked or displaced sidewalk along the 42nd Street frontage be reconstructed, and that sidewalk be constructed at the corner of River Avenue and 42nd Street in the corner cutoff area. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That the proposed new bulkhead along the bay side of the property be designed by a civil or structural engineer. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). If the existing bulkhead remains, a condition survey must be provided by a civil or structural engineer and all work must be completed in accordance with the engineers recommendations and as approved by the Building and Marine Departments. The existing bulkhead, if it remains, must be raised to a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 9. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 10. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 11. 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. x s x • -5- COMMISSIONERS J91h \0 July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RO L CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 961 (Public Hearing) item No. 2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot and portions of two other x961 lots into a single parcel of land for a two family residential condominium development on property located in the R-2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 16 and portions of Lots 14 and 18, Block 234, Corona del Mar, located at 314 Goldenrod Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Goldenrod Avenue, between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: James Kaviani, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. notion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 961, All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. -6- COMMISSIONERS " \6" 1\ July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. • 4. That the drive approach shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That all existing improvements in the public right -of -way shall be removed in a manner approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 7. That any displaced or cracked sidewalk or curb be reconstructed along the Goldenrod Avenue frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That all vehicular access to the property be from . the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to • issuance of any building permits. -7- COMMISSIONERS Q0 dh c,`Po`''le G, `9y.L July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 10. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 11. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Resubdivision No. 962 (Public Hearing) item No.3 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land 8962 for a two family residential condominium development on property 1. . . located in the R -2 District. Approved iLOCATION: Lot 20, Block 734, Corona del Mar, located at 720 Goldenrod Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Goldenrod Avenue, between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Keith Hosfiel, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Keith Hosfiel, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 962, subject to the Ayes findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. -8- COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1991 MINUTES A Q Ak CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INQEX FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDMONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the tree damaged curb be reconstructed along the Goldenrod Avenue frontage under an encroachment permit . issued by the Public Works Department. -9- COMMISSIONERS \01 �I dh 0 July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 9. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 10. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. • Resubdivision No. 963 (Public Hearing) item No.4 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land R963 for a two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 10, Tract No..626, located at 1429 West Bay Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of West Bay Avenue and 15th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Stephen McCluer, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant 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 requested a clarification of Condition No. 1, stating "That a parcel map be recorded prior to -10- COMMISSIONERS o� 11 f July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX issuance of Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments." Mr. Schooler explained that generally when there is construction across property lines, the recordation of a parcel map is required prior to building or permits; however, he explained that the subject application consists of a one lot subdivision. William Ward, Senior Planner, stated that a building permit could be pulled inasmuch as the project consists of a residential duplex and the recordation of the parcel map could occur during construction. James Hewicker, Planning Director, and Don Webb, City Engineer, concurred. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 963 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable. general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That the Parcel Map be prepared -11- COMMISSIONERS o 0 July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INQEX so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City • Council. 6. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 7. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 1950 of the Municipal Code. 8. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Bay Avenue and 15th Street be dedicated to the public. 9. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 10. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. -12- COMMISSIONERS 1 -� July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX 11. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Exception Permit No. 41 (Continued Discussion) item No.s Request to permit the replacement of an existing freestanding entry EP 41 sign for Cano's Restaurant located in the "Recreational and Marine Cont ' d to Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. The 8_8_91 proposed sign will be a second freestanding identification sign which will also include a marquis for identifying live entertainment, and an entry sign. LOCATION: A portion of Lot H, Tract No. 919, located at 2241 West Coast Highway, on the southwesterly side of West Coast Highway, between Tustin Avenue and Dover Drive, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: John Howenstine, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: Larry Cano, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that the subject item be continued to the August 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant additional time to submit the revised design of the proposed sign to the Planning Department for review. .Motion. * Motion was made and voted on to continue Exception Permit No. All Ayes 41 to the August 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. • -13- COMMISSIONERS d G,p July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX Exception Permit No. 39 (Amended) (Discussion) Item No.6 Request to amend a previously approved exception permit which EP 39A permitted the installation of various identification signs for each tenant in two of the multi- tenant buildings and three freestanding Con -' d to monument signs in the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center, located in $ -8 -91 the C -1 -11 District. The proposal includes the deletion of various identification signs for tenants, to be replaced by 2 tenant directory wall signs. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 85 -1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located at 3417 -3475 Via Lido, on the southerly side of Via Lido, between Newport Boulevard and Via Oporto, in Via Lido Plaza. ZONE: C -1 -11 APPLICANT: Young Electric Sign Company, Ontario OWNER: Fritz Duda Company, Orange James Hewicker, Planning Director, recommended that the subject application be continued to the meeting of August 8, 1991, inasmuch as the applicant has been requested to resubmit accurate plans to reflect the precise location of the proposed monument sign. Motion * The motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the All Ayes August 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. A. Use Permit No. 3420 (Continued Public Hearing) item No.7 Request to permit the conversion of. an existing legal, UP3420 nonconforming duplex which exceeds the height allowed in the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone and which exceeds 1.5 times the 8957 • buildable area of the site, into a two unit residential condominium project on property located in the R -2 District. Approved -14- COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1991 MINUTES 0 2+ d. o� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1-9-OLLCALLI 11 Jill INDEX AND B. Resubdivision No. 957 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot and portion of a second lot into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 10 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 131, Corona del Mar, located at 208 -210 Carnation Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Carnation Avenue between Seaview Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Lloyd Rasner, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the required findings for condominium conversions and resubdivisions in accordance with Section 20.73.025 and 20.73.035 of the Municipal Code as stated in the staff report, and he referred to Item 1 to be corrected wherein it is stated "Prepare CC &R's by outside council, subject to City Attorney's review and approval to address ownership, repair, and maintenance of common sewer sections located on private property." Mr. Hewicker explained that the City does not want to be involved in reviewing or approving CC&R's that are prepared for condominium development, and the issue is raised in this case because the applicant wants to retain the existing sewer facilities inasmuch as a substantial alteration would be required to the premises and would cause a disruption to the existing radiant heating systems located in the floors and ceilings of the building. He stated that the Public Works Department, in lieu of requiring a separate sewer service for each unit, is requiring adequate provisions in the CC &R's so as to address the responsibility of each owner in the event there would be a future problem with the existing sewer system. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding precedence to allow a sewer system similar to the subject request, -15- COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the Public Works Department does not recommend a waiver of a sewer system until there is proof that it would be difficult to accomplish individual sewer and water systems. Mr. Webb stated that each sewer system is evaluated separately. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms. Flory explained that the City Attorney's Office would not be in favor of reviewing and approving the CC&R's, and an alternative would be for the applicant's counsel to prepare and adequately address the conditions that are required, and submit proof that the CC &'R's have been recorded against the property. Commissioner Gross and Ms. Flory addressed the feasibility of a cross easement by the property owners. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that similar requests for one sewer system for multiple units have been allowed four or five times during the past • five or six years. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hewicker discussed the recent request by the City Council for the Planning Commission to review the regulations of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, and previously approved condominium conversions. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lloyd Rasner, applicant, 208 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rasner concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Jerry Tucker, Structural Engineer for the project, 508 Old Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rasner stated that massive reconstruction would be necessary to install separate sewer systems for the individual units, and it would be an economic hardship. Mr. Rasner stated that CC &R's could adequately address concerns regarding the sewer system, and he discussed the advantages of condominium conversions in the neighborhood. Mr. Tucker explained that the third floor of the subject duplex consists of three bathrooms, one laundry sink, one kitchen sink, and 11 different fixtures; the second floor consists of three bathrooms, • one laundry sink, one bar sink, and one kitchen sink, 11 fixtures; and the first floor consists of one bath and one bar sink, and three -16- COMMISSIONERS 1 dh \0 V N \ July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX fixtures. Mr. Tucker estimated that the plumbing costs would be from $50,000. to $100,000. not including the removal of the radiant heating system. Mr. Rasner explained that the first floor bath and bar sink is a common area that would have to be addressed in the CC &R's. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Rasner explained that insulation was added to the wall, and he was not certain how sewer line noise could be corrected to satisfy future homeowners. Mr. Todd Schooler, architect, 214 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project, and he suggested that each sewer system be considered individually and not as setting a precedent. Mr. Schooler stated that Uniform Building Code requirements for condominiums address sound between units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding Condition No. 10, Use Permit No. 3420, Exhibit "A", pertaining to the waiving of the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation and the allowable gross floor area of 1.5 times the buildable area, Mr. Schooler explained that the City has previously waived similar requirements on existing buildings. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Webb stated that the Public Works Department and the Building Department would review the CC&R's after the document is prepared by outside counsel. Commissioner Debay stated that the Building Department recommended that correction Items No. 5, regarding a fire sprinkler system, and No. 6, regarding Title 24 requirements, be notion * waived. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3420 and Resubdivision No. 957 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", waiving correction Items No. 5 and 6, and require Items No. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Commissioner Debay stated that the building is substantial, adequate, appears to be constructively sound, more than ample square footage for two units, and it is an opportunity to convert the duplex into a condominium. Mr. -17- COMMISSIONERS i July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Hewicker suggested that correction item 1 as stated in the staff report, be modified to state "That the Public Works Department and the Building Department will review the CC&R's prepared by outside counsel." Mr. Hewicker explained that a 4 /5th majority (6 ayes) vote by the Planning Commission is required to approve the waiver of the Uniform Building Code and Zoning Code requirements. Commissioner Glover did not support the motion on the basis that it is inappropriate for the Planning Commission to become involved in CC &R's and to allow the present sewer system as it is currently operating. She emphasized that Corona del Mar does not need marginal condominium conversions. Commissioner Edwards stated that the CC&R's would not solve problems relating to the sewer system. Ms. Flory explained that the CC&R's would be recorded against the property so it would be delineated as to the responsibility for repair and maintenance, or • as a notice requirement. Commissioner Debay, Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Pomeroy, and staff discussed the responsibility of the property owners if future problems would occur with the sewer system. Chairman Di Sano supported the motion as presented by Commissioner Debay. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3420 and Noes * * Resubdivision No. 957 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the waiver of correction Items No. 5 and 6. Motion was not approved on the basis that a 4 /5th majority did not support the motion. Motion * Motion was made and voted on for reconsideration to address a Ayes * * * modified Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Noes In response to Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker clarified the waivers to the Uniform Building Code and the Zoning Code. He • explained that the applicant has requested to waive fire sprinklers, Title 24 requirements, separate sewers for each of the two dwelling -18- COMMISSIONERS \04 lee\N\\ July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX units, the zoning requirements regarding height and Floor Area Ratio. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3420 and Resubdivision No. 957 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W', with the exception not to waive the sewer requirement. Commissioner Edwards explained that the sewer system would be required to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, the public hearing was reopened at this time, and Messrs..Rasner and Tucker reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker stated that the energy calculations were submitted to the Building Department and the Planning Department. Mr. Hewicker stated that the calculations have been completed and the results submitted to the Building Department, and the Building Department has recommended to the Commission that the requirements be waived. Mr. Rasner explained that the subject building is a legal, nonconforming structure. Mr. Tucker referred to a letter from the Building Department confirming the aforementioned waivers to the Uniform Building Code. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that Corona del Mar is a neighborhood that has seen an increase in the number of full time residents and fewer rental units, and it is inconceivable knowing the character of the neighborhood and the changes, that the City would benefit by discouraging ownership units. Commissioner Debay addressed the Building Department's stringent requirements, and she indicated that the Planning Commission is considering stronger requirements than the Building Department. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3420 and Resubdivision No. 957 subject to the findings and conditions in Ayes * * * * Exhibit W with the exception of not waiving the common sewer No * system. MOTION CARRIED. • -19- COMMISSIONERS o,`� N\\ dh ono I July 18, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I J I INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3420 Findings: 1. That as conditioned, the project will comply with all applicable standard plans and specifications, and adopted City and State Building Codes for new buildings. 2. That there is adequate off - street parking for the proposed residential condominium project. 3. That the project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval inasmuch as the lot is in excess of 5,000 square feet in area. 4. That the project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. • 5. That height floor the waiver of the applicable and area standards for the subject project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than would strict compliance with these standards. 6. That the waiver of the Title 24 energy conservation requirements and the requirement for the installation of a fire sprinkler system will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than would strict compliance with these standards. 7. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances 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 welfare of the City. 8. That there are no tenants within the project who are fixed • income elderly or handicapped. -20- COMMISSIONERS dh o July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 9. That there are not tenants whose income are below 120% of the County's median income. 10. That one of the two units is owner occupied, and therefore, represents 50% of the existing tenants. Conditions: 1. That the project shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems. 3. Provide a one -hour rated occupancy separation between living space and garage and /or storage areas. 4. That handrails shall be moved to allow 1.5 inches between wall and handrail for gripability. 5. That smoke detectors shall be installed in each unit per Section 1210 of the UBC. 6. That the seismic stability of the structure shall be upgraded by providing a structural moment frame at the garage area. 7. That all wiring shall comply with NEC 1988 and City of Newport Beach ordinance requirements for the spa in the courtyard area. This area shall also meet the minimum 5 foot fencing requirement with self closing gates. 8. That all Title 24 energy requirements are hereby waived. since the existing radiant heating within the structure does not conform with current code requirements and retrofit would require removal of all ceilings and walls in conditioned spaces. 9. That the requirement for equipping the structure with a fire • sprinkler system is hereby waived. -21- COMMISSIONERS dh ,o d O July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 10. That the requirements to comply with the zoning development standards pertaining to the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District and the allowable gross floor area of 1.5 times the buildable area are hereby waived. 11. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. That only two dwelling units shall be permitted on the site. 13. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 957 shall be fulfilled. 14. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Resubdivision No. 957 FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. • -22- COMMISSIONERS \\fflee �' dc� July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That the Parcel Map be prepared so that the Bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 2. That all improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That a five (5) foot corner cutoff at the intersection of the two alleys shall be dedicated to the public. 5. That the displaced sections of sidewalk and curb shall be reconstructed along the Carnation Avenue frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. -23- COMMISSIONERS °� r � � AM MINUTES July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alleys unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 9. That all conditions of Use Permit No. 3420 shall be fulfilled prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 10. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map. 11. 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. • Variance No. 1176 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to permit additions and alterations to an existing single y1176 family dwelling on property located in the R -1 District. Portions of the proposed construction, consisting of parapet walls and finials, Denied and a turret, will exceed the permitted height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 3867, located at 842 Harbor Island Drive, on the northerly side of Harbor Island Drive, at the easterly terminus of Harbor Island Drive, adjacent to the Channel entrance to Promontory Bay. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Dale Cexton Architect and Associates, Orange OWNER: Dan Tsujioka, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the findings in the staff report that the Planning Commission is required to make to • -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES .a o July 18, 1991 oe G'p cn CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Dolphin- Striker Way in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: ALNI Enterprises, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: F. M. Vegas, Inc., West Lake Village James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that based on the applicant not being able to obtain the necessary off -site parking agreements for a portion of the proposed operation, Use Permit No. 1727 (Amended) has been removed from calendar until such time as the off -site parking agreements have been obtained and reviewed by staff. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Use Permit No. 3266 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. 10 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which IJP3266A permitted the establishment of a restaurant with indoor and Approved outdoor seating with on -sale beer and wine, on property located in the P -C District. Said approval also waived a portion of the required off- street parking spaces. The proposed amendment involves: a request to expand the indoor dining area by expanding into an adjoining commercial space; a request. to expand the outdoor patio dining area; a request to expand the hours of operation so as to allow a closing time of 11:00 p.m. whereas the existing use permit requires a 9:00 p.m. closing time; and a request to waive the additional required off - street parking in conjunction with the restaurant expansion. i -29- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \04 July 18, 1991 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as it is possible to eliminate a portion of the proposed structure so as not to exceed the permitted height limit and still provide adequate living space for the dwelling. 3. That there are reasonable design alternatives available to the applicant to maintain the required basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. 4. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, under the circumstances 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 and detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Use Permit No. 1727 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. 9_ Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1727A permitted the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic Removed beverages. The proposed amendment includes a request to change from the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to. permit Calendar nighttime dancing in conjunction with pre - recorded music and occasional live entertainment, whereas the previous restaurant was required to delete all use of dancing and pre - recorded music. The proposal also requests the approval of an off -site parking agreement to provide a portion of the required daytime and nighttime parking spaces on property located at 4106 Newport Place within an existing parking structure. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 45 -23 (Resubdivision No. 347) located at 4248 Martingale Way, westerly of MacArthur Boulevard, between Martingale Way, and • -28- COMMISSIONERS \01 � q� db July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INQEX relates to architectural design. He said to make changes on a "home by home" or "issue by issue" basis is wrong, and he recommended that the architect design the structure to comply with the zoning regulations. Motion Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1176 subject to the findings in Exhibit "A ", based on the testimony of Commissioner Edwards and Commissioner Gross. Commissioner Debay stated that by ignoring the findings the Planning Commission would be sending out the wrong message as to how to qualify for a variance. She said that the findings to deny as stated in Exhibit 'B" are adequate. Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion to deny; however, he said that the rigid, straight plane roof should be looked at for flexibility within the building regulations. • Chairman Di Sano supported the motion for a reasonable design alternative, and on the basis that the findings for a variance are not substantiated. Ayes * * Motion was voted on to deny Variance No. 1176, MOTION No * CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 1176 FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots in the area which justify the approval of an increase in the height of the subject building over the permitted building height. 2. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the 24/28 Height limitation District requirements is -27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ,AA J� ,, %„ k July .18, 1991 . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL- l i J I r i I I I INDEX ' 0 Mr. Hewicker stated that when the subject building was constructed it was designed to comply with the height regulations, and in order for the new property owner to modify the architectural style of the structure, the applicant has requested a variance to the height regulations. Mr. Hewicker questioned if the Planning Commission should consider a height variance when a new property owner does not agree with the architectural styles of the dwelling. Mr. Hewicker stated that there have been many exceptions to height regulations, including solar panels, flag poles, and architectural features of an open nature such as wrought iron railings. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with the foregoing statement, and he indicated that the subject proposal is a significant raise of the height limit. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the variations in the roof tops, and he indicated that the straight plane does not allow much flexibility. He explained why a curved line on a roof could be architecturally more pleasant than a straight lined roof. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would not support the variance on the basis that there are no findings to support the variance, and "architecturally more pleasant" is not enough to support a variance. Commissioner Merrill stated that the architecture is old and dated, and the proposed design would improve the appearance of the structure. He explained that the proposed heights of the parapet walls are not obtrusive. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the finials could be permitted no higher than one foot into the height limit inasmuch as they are small and unobtrusive, and they are decorative items. Hewicker pointed out that the floor plans indicate a substantial ration to the structure. loner Gross referred to the applicant's response to the finding "why is a variance necessary to preserve property and he indicated his concern regarding any variance as it ;M1111111� COMMISSIONERS %� t I I July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 I f I I I 1 INDEX , grant the variance, and he explained to grant the variance for the additional roof top treatment that is requested by the applicant, the Commission needs to decide if there is something unusual about the subject property that does not apply to any other R -1 property in Promontory Bay or another R -1 property in the City. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dale Cexton, applicant and architect, 681 South Tustin Avenue, Orange, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Mr. Cexton stated that the Promontory Bay Community Association reviewed the subject variance and approved the design. He described the site to clarify why the property is unique. Mr. Cexton distributed exhibits describing each of the five parapet wall's height and size. Mr. Cexton stated that there is a desire by the applicants to conform with the City's height requirements. In response to a is request by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Cexton described the parapet walls and the location of same from the exhibit on display. Commissioner Debay pointed out that the staff report refers to a decorative finial that adds an additional foot to the parapet walls and the turret wherein Mr. Cexton explained that the finial is a decorative ball. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Cexton replied that Parapet Walls 1 and 3, by eliminating the finial, could be reduced to comply the height requirements; Parapet Wall 2 could be modified approximately 6 to 8 inches; Parapet Wall S could be reduced; and a portion of Parapet Wall 4 is in compliance with the required height limit. Mr. Jerry Nichol appeared before the Planning Commission as a representative of the applicant. Mr. Nichol read letters from Mr. Craig Meredith, an adjacent neighbor, and from the owner of the Marina Cafe located across the street from the subject property, in support of the variance. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. • -25- COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: A portion of Record of Survey No. 11 -34, located at 251 Shipyard Way, in the southwesterly portion of the Lido Peninsula. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Lido Shipyard Sausage Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Curci -Turner Co., Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Sabatino Ognibene, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. • Ognibene replied that the requested additional room currently exists; however, the expanded patio area has not been added. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3266 All Ayes (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. . -30- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o d July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the proposed facility and the other uses existing on the subject property. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and landscaping will not be detrimental to adjoining properties given the developed characteristics of the existing facility. S. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3266 (Amended) 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That the on -site parking lot striping shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for the as -built restaurant expansion. 3. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. Unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That a building permit shall be obtained for as -built construction as required by the Uniform Building Code and the Building Department. • -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 18, 1991 \!�\N\\ OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of . Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the hours of operation of the restaurant facility, including the outdoor dining area, shall be limited to between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., daily, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 7. That all previously applicable conditions of Use Permit No. 3266, approved May 7, 1987 and Use Permit No. 3266 (Amended), approved November 9, 1988, shall remain in effect. 8. That parking be provided on -site for the subject restaurant, based on one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area". Also that the outdoor dining area shall be . limited to a maximum "net public area" of 521± square feet and the interior dining area be limited to a maximum "net public area" of 641± square feet. 9. That the pedestrian walkway in front of the facility shall be kept clean and regularly maintained. Said walkway shall be swept, vacuumed, or washed in such a manner that any debris or wastewater does not enter the storm drain system or the Bay. 10. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained for the expanded dining area of the restaurant facility and prior to issuance of building permits for the tenant improvements associated with this approval. 11. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. • -32- COMMISSIONERS d,d MINUTES July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 12. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 13. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 14. That restaurant development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping and parking lot illumination. 15. That live entertainment or dancing shall not be permitted in conjunction with this restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 16. That all restaurant employees shall be required to park on- site at all times during the time which the restaurant is operating. 17. That no temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the restaurant facility. 18. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be shielded or screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 19. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the 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. 20. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as speed in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • -33- COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX rss Use Permit No. 3423 (Public Hearing) item Noll Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling unit UP3423 (Granny Unit) on property located in the R -1 District in accordance with Chapter 20.78 of the Municipal Code that permits Approved a second dwelling unit if said residence is intended for one or two persons who are 60 years of age or over. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 4, Tract No. 919, located at 2308 Cliff Drive, on the northeasterly side of Cliff Drive, between Aliso Avenue and Fullerton Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 • APPLICANT: Don Hinshaw, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that inasmuch as Conditions No. 6 and No. 7 are similar in that both conditions are requesting one garage space, that Condition No. 7 be deleted from Exhibit 'W, Use Permit No. 3423. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Don Hinshaw, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". He requested that Condition No. 6 stating "Drat one independently accessible garage space shall be provided for the Granny Unit at all times." be amended to state "..accessible parking space..:', inasmuch as the parking space would give the tenant parking flexibility. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Municipal Code requires one independently accessible garage space for each dwelling unit, and a garage space typically means a closed garage on the front half of the lot, or a carport off of an alley. Mr. Hewicker stated that it is not the intent of the Granny Unit -34- COMMISSIONERS 0 10 July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Ordinance to allow parking that requires an independent accessible parking space to be an open concrete apron. Mr. Hewicker referred to Section 20.78.025(F) of the Municipal Code that requires at least one independently accessible parking space for the Granny Unit provided there are at least two covered parking spaces on the site. Additional parking space shall be kept free, clear, and accessible for the parking of a vehicle at all times." In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker stated that a carport would qualify as a parking space for the granny unit. Mr. Hinshaw agreed to a carport, and he indicated he is the property owner and would occupy one of the units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hinshaw replied that he has not selected the individual to occupy the granny unit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hinshaw stated that he has discussed the granny unit with several neighbors. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the Planning Commission received three letters from neighbors objecting to the granny unit. Commissioner Merrill stated that he observed several rooms located over garages in the vicinity of the subject site. Mr. Hinshaw concurred that there are several properties with units over garages in the neighborhood. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3423 subject to the Ayes * * * findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", excluding Condition No. 7 Noes which states that one of the garage spaces be for the exclusive use of the granny unit. Commissioner Glover stated she would not support the motion inasmuch as granny units have been forced into the R -1 • -35- COMMISSIONERS 0 oc'0 July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and worldng in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That the second dwelling unit shall be for rental purposes only and shall be limited to the use of one or two persons over the age of 60 years. • 3. That the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or two adults 60 years of age or over, and committing the permittee and successors to comply with current ordinances regarding Granny Units. Said covenant shall also contain all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. 4. Commencing with the final inspection of the Granny Unit by a City Building Inspector and on an annual basis every year thereafter, the property owner shall submit to the Planning Director the names and birth dates of any and all occupants of the Granny Unit constructed pursuant to this approval to verify occupancy by a person or persons 60 years of age or older. Upon any change of tenants, the property owner shall notify the City immediately. This information shall be submitted in writing and contain a statement signed by the property owner certifying under penalty of perjury that all of the information is true and correct. • -37- COMMISSIONERS O 0p 1\ 0 July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX neighborhood. She understood that granny units are required by the State of California and adopted by the City Council; however, she said the residents should not bear the burden, and the proposed granny unit would only add to the number of units in the neighborhood. Commissioner Debay supported the motion on the basis that the project conforms with all of the granny unit requirements in accordance with the Municipal Code. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that there are legal and moral reasons to approve the granny unit, the Granny Unit Ordinance was written to encourage more affordable housing opportunities for senior citizens, the Ordinance is a part of the City's affordable housing goals, and the Planning Commission should support the Ordinance. • Chairman Di Sano supported the motion base on Commissioner Debay and Commissioner Pomeroy's reasons. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Costal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. That the design of the development 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 development. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3423 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, • -36- COMMISSIONERS , July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the primary residence or the Granny Unit shall be continuously occupied by at least one person having an ownership interest in the property. 6. That one independently accessible garage space shall be provided for the Granny Unit at all times. 7. Deleted. 8. That the project shall comply with the requirements of the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. 9. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Amendment No. 737 (Public Hearine) item xo.12 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code A737 so as to establish new building height standards for the Corona Highlands residential area, more specifically identified as Lots 4- Denied 190, Tract No. 1237. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject Amendment was initiated by the City Council, and the Planning Department staff and the City Attorney's Office have been working with the Board of Directors of Corona Highlands Community Association in excess of one year. He explained that the issue of building heights as enforced by the Community Association and as regulated by the City, came to the attention of Mayor Sansone and the City Council. The heights of residential buildings in Corona Highlands as originally set forth in private Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) have been administered by the Community Association. The height regulations as they are set • -38- COMMISSIONERS in Olt July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX forth in the City's Zoning Ordinance, are administered by the City's Planning Department, and there have been conflicts in the height regulations that have created problems for the Community Association. The Corona Highlands community was subdivided in the late 1940's, and since inception there has been a certain character and feeling to the community. The streets in the Association area are public streets that provide public views, and the public views can be protected by adopting height regulations which would allow the existing character of the community to maintain status quo as opposed to allowing buildings to be built at a higher elevation permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission and the City Council could adopt different height regulations to preserve the unique character and preserve public views from public streets in the community. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City has adopted height regulations for Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar where the current height regulations on the oceanside of Ocean Boulevard are limited to a height not to exceed top of curb, and the special height regulations that were adopted on Kings Road were subsequently ruled illegal inasmuch as there were no public views to be preserved. He suggested that the Planning Commission not get'bogged" down or involved in the question of the City's attempt to take over and administer the private CC&R's of the Community Association inasmuch as the Planning Department wants to avoid CC &R's; however, the City wants to preserve the character of the community, preserve the public views, and to consider the heights of the buildings in Corona Highlands as the structures were originally built. Mr. Hewicker stated that public notices were mailed to all of the property owners in the Corona Highlands Community Association. Commissioner Edwards stated that the CC &R's that remain in effect are sole, separate, independent, individual remedies available to the homeowners, and are independent of the adoption of any Amendment. He indicated that the City does not become involved in CC &R's, and they are enforced by the Community Association and the individual homeowners. Robin Flory, Assistant City • -39- COMMISSIONERS 0 �. \ July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Attorney, concurred with Commissioner Edwards' foregoing statements. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker explained that the photographs on exhibit depict public views of the hills or ocean from public streets, He indicated that the exhibits depict the heights of existing buildings and the heights that would be permitted if the buildings would be allowed to a height of 24 feet under the existing Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Glover stated that there are areas within the City that have public views from public streets that have never been addressed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Debay stated that it was her impression that there are homeowners in the community that were not informed that the Community Association was going to make the subject proposal to • the City Council, and said homeowners have not had an opportunity to voice an opinion. She inquired if there would be a concern if the adoption of the proposed Amendment would be more restrictive than the CC &R's. William Ward, Senior Planner, referred to the four photographs on exhibit, and he explained that the proposed Ordinance is more restrictive inasmuch as the City identifies the 16 foot height from the highest elevation within the buildable portion of the property, and the Community Association measures the 16 foot height from the highest elevation anywhere on the lot. Mr. Hewicker explained that anytime the City adopts regulations so as to modify the height limits from previously enforced height limits, there is the possibility of problems that are more or less restrictive inasmuch as it constitutes another method of measuring height or a height limit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the legal aspects of the proposed Ordinance, Ms. Flory explained that there are various elements to "taking" and changing the height limit does not constitute a "taking" of property rights. Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that the . Corona Highlands Community Association's CC &R's addresses height limit and view • -40- COMMISSIONERS o. \a\ \\ July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX obstruction caused by trees and shrubs. He observed that the photographs depict trees and shrubs that exceed the height allowed by the CC &R's and impede a public view. He questioned the difference of a tree or shrub and a building, and he commented from his personal experience with homeowner's associations that trees and shrubs are a view problem throughout the City. Commissioner Gross asked why it is necessary for the City to put a limitation on the height when the CC &R's is more restrictive than the City's, and the height restriction is being enforced by the homeowners. He questioned if the issue should be discussed at this time. Mr. Hewicker and Ms. Flory explained that the Planning Commission has been requested by the City Council to determine if there is a character or charm to the Corona Highlands area that needs to be protected by reducing the height limit regardless of what the Community Association's CC &R's require. Mr. Ward stated that the photographic exhibits on display demonstrate public views of the ocean and hills, a colored 24 foot site line, and a colored 16 foot site line from specific sites in Corona Highlands. He referred to the colored map that was distributed to the Planning Commission depicting the three height zones within Corona Highlands. Mr. Ward explained that the green area of the map depicts a 16 foot height limit from grade as it parallels the existing grade of the property; the blue area allows 16 feet measured from the highest finished floor elevation within the buildable portion of the property and he commented that this is an area where there is a discrepancy between the Association's historical interpretation and the proposed Ordinance; and the red area depicts where the proposed Ordinance would measure 22 feet from the highest finished elevation within the buildable portion of the property, and the CC &R's also include the provision. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Ward explained that to make the proposed Ordinance consistent with the Community Association's historical interpretation of the aforementioned blue area, Section 20.02.050 G (2) could be amended from "Structures on lots 47 through 60, 65 through 158, • -41- COMMISSIONERS 03� o �0 MINUTES July 18, 1991 , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 165 through 175, and 181 through 189, inclusive, shall not exceed sixteen feet above the highest finished elevation of the building site as that term is defined in this subsection." to "..finished elevation of the propeM or lot..." Section 20.02.050 G (4) "The term 'highest finished elevation on the building site' is defined as meaning the highest elevation on any portion of the buildable area of the parcel..", and Section 20.02.050 G (2) would be modified so as to be different from the term "highest finished elevation on building site". Mr. Hewicker addressed the lots that back up on Seaward Road to The Irvine Company's downcoast area wherein he stated that The Irvine Company is currently negotiating with the property owners to receive additional Irvine Company land between the proposed golf course and the existing rear of the properties. He said that because of the current grading, the backs of the lots are higher than what currently exist, and he questioned if the height of the • building on said lots would be measured from the highest elevation on the lot. Mr. Ward stated that the exhibit depicts two story structures in Corona Highlands wherein he pointed out that the majority of said structures exist on the Terrace Streets. He indicated that there are lots on Seaward Road and De Anza Drive that have single pads with a slight slope at the rear of the property for drainage purposes, and the higher elevation at the back of the lot may be outside of the buildable area of the property. The proposed Ordinance could be burdensome on said lots for a property owner who is attempting to construct a two story building. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to Section 20.02.050 G (5) stating "For purposes of the special height limit provisions of this subsection, the term "height" shall mean the highest ridge or point of any structure without regard to the nature or configuration of the roof line or roof treatment." He indicated that in an area where a 24 foot height limit is permissible, it is feasible that a 29 foot high ridge to encourage roof variation and pitch would no longer exist. Commissioner Pomeroy concluded that the height would be • -42- COMMISSIONERS '�IVOKV \V July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX lowered to 16 feet or to 22 feet but it would also be changing the flexibility and provision in the existing height limit that allows roof variations. Mr. Ward explained that the measurement of height for the 16 foot height limit and the 22 foot height limit would be to the highest point of the structure, i.e. a ridge line on a sloping roof. He said that the method of measuring height would apply only in that instance and it would not change how the average roof height is measured in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. Commissioner Debay stated that it is feasible there would be many flat roofed houses in Corona Highlands if 16 feet is approved at the highest point. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mark Cardelucci, 455 Cabrillo Terrace, President of the Corona Highlands Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to previous questions posed by • the Planning Commission, Mr. Cardelucci stated that it is not mandatory for the property owners to join the Association; approximately 145 property owners are members of the Association; and the area consists of 192 lots and 3 double lots. Commissioner Pomeroy stated the CC&R's are recorded documents against all of the properties, and Mr. Cardelucci concurred. Mr. Cardelucci asked a former councilman several years ago if trees could be restricted or if there could be some type of enforcement, and he was informed that they could not. Mr. Cardelucci stated that the Community Association does not have the power to enforce the building heights or landscaping. He said that during the past year literature was distributed throughout the community concerning the proposed Ordinance, and the Association's Board of Directors met with City staff. It was his opinion that the majority of the residents support the proposed Ordinance, and the Community Association supports the aforementioned modified Section 20.02.050 G (2) as previously stated by Mr. Ward. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Cardelucci stated that property owners have had difficulty enforcing • -43- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o d o� July 18, 1991 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLE CALL INOEX the Association's CC &R's; several homeowners were involved in a lawsuit concerning the height limit during the past year; a vote from the property owners of the 195 lots was not taken concerning the proposed Ordinance; and a few residents contacted Mayor Sansone expressing their concerns. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the enforcement of CC&R's, Mr. Cardelucci replied that currently it is the responsibility of the individual homeowner to enforce the CC &R's and not the Community Association. He said that property owners submit proposed plans to an Architectural Committee, which is separate from the Association, for approval. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Cardelucci replied that the Community Association does not have. documents stating the property owners' support of the proposed Ordinance. He further replied that eight of the nine members on the Executive Board of Directors supported the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Merrill and Commissioner Edwards discussed the issue of the Community Association and individual homeowners initiating lawsuits. Commissioner Gross referred to the Corona Higblands Community Association's CC &R's, paragraph 22, wherein he stated that with 65 percent vote of the property owners the CC &R's could be amended. Mr. Cardelucci stated the 19 property owners in the neighborhood who have dropped out of the CC&R's have not legally been tested. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Cardelucci replied that there are very few people who are casual, non - resident, visitor drivers in the neighborhood who are looking for a view. Mr. Jim Weisenbach, 452 Morning Canyon Road, appeared before the Planning Commission, current member of the Architecture • -44- COMMISSIONERS ,o 0 VO Ot V\N July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Committee and former member of the Board of Directors. He stated that a primary reason for the proposed Ordinance is that the neighborhood and the hillside have a character because the majority of the property owners have built within the restrictions of the CC &R's, and the community has a desire to preserve the look. Mr. Weisenbach indicated that the Architectural Committee and the Community Association are not in favor of the height limit as it is currently worded, and request that the aforementioned Section 20.02.050 G (2) be modified. He stated that the Community Association was informed during the aforementioned lawsuit that they did not have a legal standing to bring a lawsuit primarily because the Community Association is voluntary rather than mandatory. He said that said lawsuit resulted in a compromise between the interested parties. Mr. Weisenbach indicated that 74 property owners contributed to the lawsuit to pay the legal fees. It was his opinion that the majority of the property owners support the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Merrill stated that he could not determine if there was enough support from the community to approve the proposed Ordinance, and he suggested a petition be submitted signed by the majority of the property owners. Commissioner Debay addressed a letter received by the Planning Commission from Mr. and Mrs. James Conway, property owner on Morning Canyon Road, stating that many of the property owners were not informed of the proposed Ordinance, and the letter also addresses the issue of the City stepping in to assist other Homeowner's Associations within the City to enforce their CC &R's. Commissioner Debay stated that it is conceivable that the City could be contacted by other Homeowner's Associations within the City to preserve the character of their neighborhood. Mr. Weisenbach stated that the property owners were not informed of the subject public hearing prior to receiving the official public notice from the Planning Department. He responded that' the character of the neighborhood developed because of the CC&Ws and the community wants to maintain the status quo. • 45 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Gross stated that when a property owner reads and signs the CC &R's when a home is purchased, the property owner is bound to the CC &R's when the title is taken for that property. He asked what differentiates the subject Association from other Associations. Mr. Weisenbach replied that the CC&R's were documented in 1949 and they do not allow for provisions for enforcement. Commissioner Glover suggested that the Community Association and the property owners work together to preserve the character of the community. Mr. Garrett Smith, 424 Rivera Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that legal counsel informed the Community Association that the CC&R's cannot be enforced inasmuch as there is no mechanism within the CC&R's to enforce. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. • Smith replied that legal counsel informed the Association that the CC &R's could be enforced with the approval of 65 percent of the property owners. In response to previous concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith indicated there are fewer flat roofs in Corona Highlands than in some other areas of the City, and he stated that the property adjacent to the downcoast that would be given to the property owners by The Irvine Company, is not buildable inasmuch as it would be restricted by The Irvine Company. Mr. Hewicker stated that if it becomes a part of the building site, it does not matter if the property is buildable or not if it is a reference point for the purpose of measuring height. Mr. Calvin McLaughlin, 544 Seaward Road, appeared before the Planning Commission stating he supported the proposed Ordinance. Mr. McLaughlin stated that it would be efficient to set up a City Ordinance, and everyone would comply with said Ordinance eliminating the need for property owners going to Court. He said that the City is responsible to maintain the character of a neighborhood. In response to a comment expressed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. McLaughlin indicated that the subject S -46- COMMISSIONERS .o d d 10 �d July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX request could be applied to all of the City's homeowners associations. Commissioner Merrill stated that he did not believe that the City should be involved with selective enforcement of one provision of the Association's CC &R's. In response to comments expressed by Mr. McLaughlin regarding the City's responsibilities, Commissioner Debay stated that she was concerned that 100 percent of the property owners were not being represented. Commissioner Gross commented that Corona Highlands should not be treated separately from the rest of the City inasmuch as the 24/28 Height Limit is maintained throughout the City. He responded to a previous comment wherein he stated that the City has incurred expenses to schedule the subject public hearing on behalf of the Community Association. Ms. Deborah Sperberg, 609 Seaward Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. She pointed out that inasmuch as 72 property owners contributed to the costs of the aforementioned lawsuit that it would indicate there is substantial support throughout the community for the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Mark Kehkee, 565 Seaward Road, a member of the Board of Directors, and the lone dissenting vote to support the proposed Ordinance appeared before the Planning Commission. He indicated that the Planning Commission previously had addressed concerns of many of the residents who were prepared to testify during the public hearing. Mr. Kehkee supported the Commission's recommendation to return the issue to the Community Association for the reason that it is the Association's place to resolve problems with the homeowners so as to preserve the character of the community. Mr. Kehkee and Commissioner Pomeroy discussed the maximum height that he could build his home, and receive the support of his neighbors. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that a rigid 16 foot height limit may bear no relevance whatsoever on impacted views depending upon the individual situation. Mr. Kehkee concurred, and he said the foregoing should be addressed by the Association. Commissioner -47- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 18, 1491 ai,g CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill I INDEX Debay stated that property owners are limited by the CC &R's regardless of the City's regulations. Ms. Flory suggested that the Planning Commission could consider if it is appropriate to preserve the area as it is at the current height limit or, from a planning standpoint, the area could be built out to the allowed height limits that are currently in force. She said that it may be correct that the community can enforce the CC&R's, but does the City want to see how the area develops from a planning standpoint. Mr. Hal Woods, 2919 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of friends who are property owners residing on Seaward Road. He addressed the number of structures in Corona Highlands that exceed one story, and he commented that the restrictions have been applied very arbitrarily by the Association for over 40 years. Mr. Woods referred to the unique • topography of the area, and spealdng as an architect, he commented that it is a quaint area consisting of lots that have unique effects. Mr. Woods stated that a 16 foot height limit would allow only single story structures. He suggested that the proposal be given more time and effort on a lot by lot basis by at least the Association. Mr. Richard Lewis, 535 Seaward Road, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he supported preserving everyone's views. In reference to the exhibits on display, Mr. Lewis addressed the single story structures in lower Corona Highlands, and the inconsistent height limits on Seaward Road that would impede his view of the hills and golf course if the structures across the street from his property will build to the allowed maximum height limit. Mr. Michael Toerge, 448 Mendoza Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the interpretation of the CC&R's, and he said that it is his contention as well as several neighbors that the Community Association has been interpreting the CC &R's erroneously inasmuch as the Association has been less restrictive than the CC &R's state based on the height of the -48- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 o July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R(5rLCALLI 11 111 1 INDEX landscaping and two story homes in the neighborhood. He said that the less restrictive interpretations offer benefits to some of the homeowners, and those benefits encroach on rights of others as they relate to view. Mr. Toerge referred to the CC &R's wherein it is stated "highest finished grade level ", and he said that the Community Association contends that the "highest finished grade level" is the highest grade on the lot, and the City has documented the proposed Ordinance to state "the highest grade within the buildable area ". He contended that the original intent of the CC &R's was to preserve views and maintain the character of the neighborhood. He distributed and described documents depicting several pad levels located on Mendoza Terrace, De Sola Terrace, and Cabrillo Terrace. Mr. Toerge concluded that the Board of Directors of the Community Association and the Architectural Committee are not elected bodies, and the Association has no authority to act on behalf of all the property owners. He suggested that the City review every single issue in Corona Highlands before taking away their property rights. Mr. Mitch Mitchell, 612 Seaward Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that he intends to construct a home to fulfill the size of the lot that is equivalent to when he purchased his lot several years ago, and he said that under the guidelines of 16 feet he would not be able to fulfill that desire. He said that he was informed he would be able to construct a home 16 feet above the highest point of the lot. He said that The Irvine Company's development would prevent him from viewing the hillside if a single story structure would be built. Mr. Mitchell stated that when he purchased his property he was not advised of the CC&R's and was not advised of the restrictions. He said that the property owners were not advised by the Community Association of the pending changes, the restrictions are arbitrary and hypocritical. He said if a structure would not block anyone's view why limit the height to 16 feet wherein he indicated that his property backs up to the golf course. Mr. Bill Geyer, 416 De Sola Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that after approvals by the Community • -49- COMMISSIONERS ,,, *, A;,, ,('"a �', % I July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I l I I I ( INDEX Association and the Architectural Committee to construct his home, a neighbor objected to the fact that a portion of the structure would block his view; therefore, he subsequently made a costly alteration to his flat roofed home. Mr. Richard Cabin, 528 Seaward Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. He expressed his desire for the property owners to meet and confer regarding the proposed Ordinance so as to be able to make a presentation to the Planning Commission, and he stated that the neighbors he spoke to regarding said Ordinance were against the revision. Mr. Cabin stated there are three groups of people who come to Corona Highlands: the local residents, visitors, and people who are lost. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. on * Motion was made to continue Amendment No. 737 to allow the Community Association and the property owners to meet with staff regarding the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the proposed Ordinance was initiated at the request of the Corona Highlands Community Association, and it appears that the Association needs to contact the property owners to advise them of the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Glover stated that the Corona Highlands Community Association needs to develop leadership within the community, and it is not a staff problem Commissioner Pomeroy stated that there are many people who believe that the 24/28 Height Limit is too restrictive within the City because of the number of requests for variances, and he addressed the 16 foot height limit. He said that it is obvious that the property owners have been able to work out solutions to the satisfaction of the neighbors in the vast majority of situations. Beyond that, the City is being asked to match a height limit with an Association's CC &R's, that has never been done before, to solve an enforcement COMMISSIONERS .,l\ -\ , wl % I July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX problem. He said if it is done for the subject Association it should be done for every Association in the City. Commissioner Gross stated he would not support the motion on the basis that he could not see a reason for the proposed Ordinance, and it should be eliminated as an issue. He stated that a petition containing a 65 percent majority of the property owners would allow an amendment to the CC &R's, and the Association would be able to take care of its own problem. Substitute Substitute motion was made to deny Amendment No. 737 inasmuch Motion as it is not an appropriate action for the Planning Commission or Ayes * * * * * * the City of Newport Beach. No Chairman Di Sano supported the substitute motion based on Commissioner Pomeroy, Commissioner Gross, and Commissioner Edwards' testimony. He stated that the Association has CC &R's, and the City is being asked to do something which in other areas of the City, other Associations have CC &R's that are effective. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that he took photographs of public views from public streets and as a result of the photographs he believed there was an issue of protecting public views by modifying the height limit and to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said that those concerns are the only legal way the Planning Commission can approve the Amendment. He addressed the Commission's concern that there may not be enough public support to approve the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Edwards stated his support of the substitute motion based on the Association's failure to demonstrate evidence that the Association is relying on the City to enforce their own particular personal interests, and he said for that purpose the City is being asked to solve their personal problems. Commissioner Edwards concluded that the Association should have done their homework by getting the property owners more involved before coming to the Planning Commission. • -51- COMMISSIONERS V\N0 July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Ms. Flory explained that the Planning Commission needs to be able to support the fact that there is a reason to preserve character and public views. Commissioner Merrill, Ms. Flory, and Mr. Hewicker considered actions that the Association could take if 100 percent of the property owners approved an action. Mr. Hewicker stated that it is necessary to make a finding that a public purpose is involved. Commissioner Glover supported the substitute motion, and she said that it would take more than 100 signatures for her to consider giving up property owners' property rights. Substitute motion was voted on to deny Amendment No. 737. SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED. For clarification, Commissioner Debay explained that her vote in favor of a continuance was not to give the impression that she was in favor of the Amendment. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add'l Business motion X Motion was made and voted on by the Planning Commission to All Ayes direct staff to place a Discussion Item on the August 22, 1991, - Discussion Planning Commission Agenda requesting that staff prepare Item re. recommendations on each agenda item. MOTION CARRIED. staff recommend. x x x Motion Motion was made and voted on to consider two joint City joint Ayes ** X Council /Planning Commission meetings instead of one joint CC /PC Noes * * * meeting with the expressed purpose of reviewing the priority.of the Meetings planning staffs projects. MOTION DENIED. s x -52- COMMISSIONERS 0 o� July 18, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made and voted on to excuse Chairman Di Sano from All ayes the August 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 11:58 p.m. Adjourn NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -53-