Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1984COMMISSIONERS Regulat:Planning Commission Meeting .DATE: July 19, 1984 m .s x TIME: 7:30 p.m. _5 v PLACE: City Council Chambers m o m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Present Ix Ix Ixl xl xl xlx EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney STAFF - MEMBERS - PRESENT William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb', City Engineer Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Joanne Baade; Recording Secretary a • Minutes of June 21, 1984 Motion x Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission Ayes x x x x x minutes of June 21, 1964 as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Abstain x x Consideration of the Planning Commission minutes of July 5, 1984 was deferred to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1984. Requests for Continuances Planning Director Hewicker. stated that staff is requesting that Agenda Item No. 5 (Use Permit No. 3103 - Studio Cafe) be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9., 1984 due to a defect in the public notice which was provided for the application. It was noted that a continuance of the' - subject, 'item to the August 9, 1984 meeting will allow time for the application;to be re- noticed. Motion Ix I I I I I I I Motion was made that the Planning Commission continue. AjWes Use Permit No. 3103 to the Planning.Commission meeting of August 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. Minutes/ 6/21/84 Minutes/ 7/5/84 U.P. #3103 i Continued to 8/9/84 July 19, 1984 MINUTES m n' C a • m n m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • • Use Permit.No. 1965 (Amended) (Revocation) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit No. 1965 (Amended) that permitted the change of operational characteristics of the existing A.T. Leo's Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages located in the C -1 District with existing related parking in the R -1 District so as to include live entertainment and dancing in con- junction with the - restaurant use. This public hearing is to determine whether said use permit should be revoked for failure to comply with certain required Conditions of Approval. LOCATION:. Lots 58 -67, Tract No. 673, located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway. -and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONES: - C -1 and R -1 APPLICANT A.T. Leo's Fine Foods and Spirits -, Corona del Mar OWNER:, Same as applicant INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff stepped down from the dais and refrained from deliberation on this agenda item due to a potential conflict of interest. Planning Director Hewicker explained that the issue before the Planning Commission is a proposal to revoke Use Permit No.. 1965 for failure to: comply with-the Conditions.of Approval.which were previously imposed upon the applicant. Mr. Hewicker reviewed the background of the application, advising that at its meeting of February 23, 1984, the Planning Commission noted that the applicant had not dedicated a.corner cut -off and had not.recorded a parcel map which had been previously required. Hence, the Planning Commission directed that staff automatically set the matter for revocation if the parcel map was not.recorded by May 24th. Mr. Hewicker -2- Item #1 U.P. #1965 iAmended) - Granted 6 -month time exten- sion in whi ch to record Parcel Map COMMISSIONERS July 19, 1984 T n x � � c � 3 � • X ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL • • MINUTES advised that since the recordation did not occur by the prescribed time, staff has followed -the Planning Commis- sion's direction and has set the matter for public hearing Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant has, subsequent to the.February 23, 1984 meeting, dedicated the corner cut -off. Therefore; Mr. Hewicker explained that the out standing obligation is to record the parcel map. Mr. Hewicker reported that the parcel map has not been record- ed inasmuch as the second trust deed lien holder on the property refuses to sign.the. map; as.required by the California State Subdivision'Map Act. Mr:..Hewicker added that.the second trust .deed is due.to be paid off on May 11 1985 and, therefore, staff is.suggesting that the Planning Commission grant a continuance not to exceed a six -month period from the January 29, 1985 expiration date of Resubdivision No. 717. The public hearing was opened in. connection with this item and Al . Mayo, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr..Mayo- advised that the.second trust deed holder is due to be paid off within the next few weeks, at which time the current third.trust deed holder will become the second trust deed holder.- Mr. Mayo explained that the present third trust deed holder is an out -of- state resident and.is reluctant to sign the map. Mr. Mayo went on to state; however; that the third trust deed holder is due to be.paid off in May, 1985. Philip De Carion appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he leases space:from.Mr. Mayo for his business, i.e., Laredo Bar -B -Q. Mr. DeCarion commented that, with the.exception.of the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant has complied with all imposed Condition. of Approval and.has operated in good faith. There being no others. desiring to appear and be heard, the public..hearing was closed., Commissioner King pointed out that.the subject restaurant is well- maintained and relayed.his belief that the appli- cant has attempted to comply with City requirements. -3- INDEX m n x • c o n x 0 3 3 1 , n = Motion Ayes Absent • is x 1x1XI x1x1x July 19, 1984 M MINUTES Motion was made that the Planning- .Commmission extend x Resubdivision No. 717 for a six -month period, i.e.; until July 29, 1985, which MOTION CARRIED. F. i3 Use Permit No. 991 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a.previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a.church in the R -3 -B Dis- trict. The proposed amendment is a 'request to locate a temporary relocatable building on the subject property to be used for temporary church related offices. LOCATION: Record of survey 63 -46, (Resubdivision No. 173), located at 2046 Mar Vista Drive on the southwesterly corner,of Mar vista Drive and Domingo Drive, across from the Corona del Mar High School. ZONE: R -3 -B APPLICANT:. Our Lady queen of Angels Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, Orange Planning -- Director .Hewicker explained that the issue before the Planning- Commission is a. request of 0ur Lady Queen of 'Angels Church to permit them to establish a temporary office facility on their property. Mr. Heaicker added that staff has not received any phone calls or corres- pondence relative to the subject request. The.public hearing was 'opened in .connection with this agenda item and.James.Parker; 1201 Dove Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behai£.of the applicant. Mr. Parker relayed the Church's objection to proposed Condition No: 6, which provides that.the applicant shall pay Fair -Share for circulation . system improvements and noise walls. Mr. Parker requested that the subject Condition be waived: Mr. Parker questioned the "fairness" CEM INDEX Item #2 '..U.P. #991 (Amended) Approved Condi- tionally J i� • M n � g m a� July 19, 1984 of Newport Beach MINUTES of the Fair -Share Ordinance and.'opined'that the Ordinance is of questionable constitutionality .inasmuch as he felt it to be a regressive .tax that puts an unequal distribu- tion of taxes on one segment of the community and there- fore denies equal protection of the laws. Additionally, Mr. Parker discussed his belief that the Fair -Share Ordi- nance discourages development of the community. Mr. Parker pointed out that a temporary building is proposed and questioned whether the City would be willing to refund the Fair -Share monies in the event the Church elects not to utilize the temporary facility for the full three years as proposed, and /or in the event the Church abandons the idea of building a permanent. structure. Mr. Parker expressed his opinion that if all the churches in Newport Beach were to add 700 sq. ft.' to their office space, there still would be no impact on street usage in the City. In closing, Mr. Parker reiterated his opinion that Condi- tion No. 6 should be waived due to the unusual and extra -. ordinary circumstances surrounding the subject application. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the.Planning Commis- sion does not have the authority to waive the Fair -Share contribution. Mr. Hewicker went on to explain that the City will determine whether or not the Ordinance applies to the subject application, prior to'the time the building permit is issued for the temporary building. Mr. Hewicker added that the applicant will be obliged to pay if it is found that the Ordinance .does apply to the. .subject applica- tion; if, however,.it is found that the Ordinance does not apply, the City will not ask for the funds. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele stated that the Fair - Share Ordinance °was prepared to comply with the substantive and procedural constitutional rights of applicants. Mr. Parker responded that some Ordinances passed by govern- mental bodies have been.declared unconstitutional in the past, despite the fact that vast public hearings had been conducted and numerous legal opinions provided. Mr. Parker stated that the application of the Fair - Share Ordinance under the circumstances of the subject project would not be fair and again requested the waiver of Condi- tion No. 6. -5- INDEX COMtWISSIONERSI July 19, 1984 m n' x D � • a m 0 � x ,A � of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I IINDEX I Motion All Ayes 0 During the course of discussion, Planning Director Hewicker noted that the Planning Commission can, if desired; delete Condition No. 6 from the specified Condi- tions of Approval of the Use Permit. Mr..Hewicker added, however, that the.issue of the Fair -Share contribution is not a matter of debate, and.pointed out that the Fair - Share determination will be made regardless of whether or not the subject Condition is included in the imposed Conditions of Approval. There being no .others desiring to appear and be heard, the:public' hearing was closed. Motion.was made for approval of Use Permit No. 991 (Amended), subject to the Findings and Conditions con- tained in Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. The proposed development.is consistent with the General Plan,.and is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. The approval.of Use..Permit No. 991 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be-detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood,or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That.development shall be in substantial conformance with the.approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That the temporary structure shall be removed from the site and the.premises shall be restored to its former condition upon the termination of the pro- posed use on the site. -6- COMMISSIC)NERS July 19, 1984 MINUTES T n x g �E 9 3 • > > m n ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That.the approval of this use permit shall be for a period of.three years. Any extension of time shall be approved by the Modifications Committee. 4. That the proposed temporary building shall maintain the minimum required separations from existing structures as required by the Uniform Building Code (1979.Edition). 5. That the installation of the proposed temporary building shall be subject to the issuance of a building permit. - 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the appli- cant -shall pay Fair - Share -for circulation system improvements and noise walls as established by ordi- nance. • 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090,A of the Newport teach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1 -114 (Public Hearing) Item #3 Request to permit the construction of a singler family Variance dwelling on property located in the R -3 District which No. 1114 exceeds the maximum allowable building height on the front one - half.of the property, located in the 24/28 Deferred Foot Height Limitation District. - -. to end of Agenda LOCATION: Parcel No, 2 of Parcel Map 36 -3, - (Resubdivision No. 274),.located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, on the south- westerly side of Ocean Boulevard, at the southwesterly terminus of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 • APPLICANT: John R. McIntosh, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant -7- r, COMMISSICNNERSI July 19, 1984 m f � v � m m 0 m City of Newport Beach MINUTES 0 ROLL CALL I 111 Jill I INDEX Motion All Ayes r1 LJ r1 �J x Motion was.made to .defer this agenda item to the end of this evening's agenda so. as to.allow time for the Applicant to return to the Council Chambers, which MOTION CARRIED. (Discussion of this: item begins on Page 40 of these minutes � x t A. Tentative Map-of Tract No. 12208 (Public:Hearing) Request to subdivide six existing lots into a single lot £or. residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -4 District, and the approval of an environmental document. M B. Use Permit No. 3101 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 9 -unit residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -4 District. The proposal also .includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 7 foot 7 inch building encroachment into the required 11 foot 7 inch northerly side yard setback area. . AND C.. Residential Coastal Development Permit No_. -6 (Discus- sion Request to consider a residential coastal development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 9 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the - .State -Law relative to Low -.and Moderate- Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Lots 7-12, Block I of the Balboa Bayside Tract., located at 303 Cypress Street, on the north4esterly corner of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. e T n x m v a • r � LJ July 19, 1984 Z ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNERS: R -4 MINUTES Wale Development Corporation, Irvine La Verne and Betty W. Hart, Balboa Planning Director Hewicker reviewed the applications in question. .Mr. Hewicker advised that there are currently ten dwelling units on the subject property, which the applicant proposes to remove and replace with a nine -unit condominium. Mr. Hewicker added that the existing density on the property is 42 dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed.development, Mr. Hewicker advised, would be 38 dwelling units per acre, with 54 dwelling units per. acre being permitted under the existing R -4 zoning on the property. Mr. Hewicker reported that the City has .received several items:of. correspondence from persons residing to the west of the subject property. Mr. Hewicker commented that those residents are concerned with the proposal that wood- burning fireplaces.be included in the units. During the course of his presentation, Mr..Hewicker pointed out that, the subject fireplaces would be required.to meet all build- ing codes of the City so as to eliminate any fire hazard to adjoining property. Mr. Hewicker added that.Mr. Wale has met with the Newport Bay Towers residents and.has indi- cated a willingness to abide by additional Conditions, as set forth in his letter to the Planning Commission, dated July 16, 1984; Mr. Hewicker pointed out, however, that the .suggested additional Conditions of Approval would be unenforceable. Mr. Hewicker further advised that the City is requiring, in connection with the Residential Coastal Development Permit, that the Applicant provide.-one unit that is affordable to moderate - income peope, i.e., a household earning $43,531.per year and paying a monthly rent of $1;088 per month. SL INDEX July 19, 1984 MINUTES m n' x V � • City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • • The public hearing was opened in connection with this agenda.item and Ed Wale,. Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wale commented that he has tried to accommodate the neighboring residents as much as possible. Mr. Wale then discussed his concerns with various proposed Conditions of Approval as set forth below: With respect to setback requirements, Mr. Wale contended that he.was provided erroneous setback information by staff and that he did not become. aware. that said informa- tion was incorrect until after $15,000was expended on the project; Relative to staff's statement that the project exceeds the established height limit due to the proposed skylights, Mr. Wale commented that the skylights are situated between the recessed roofs of the.units and hence not visible from any side of the building. Mr. Wale referred to Page 4 of the.staff' report, wherein it states that "...the Building Department will require a 5 -foot sidey'ard setback, which is acceptable to the applicant." Mr. Wale stated that he did not agree to a 5'- side yard setback, and spoke in support of a 4'- setback inasmuch as he felt it would result in a more - appealing project. Mr.., Wale referred to the issue of the front yard setback; and brought - notice'' - to Page 5 of the staff report - wherein it states., "....the project must be redesigned to conform. to the setback requirement, inasmuch as a modification to the zoning. Code was not requested." Mr. Wale stated that he also did not request any of the:other modifica- tions to the Zoning Code', and added.that.he was informed that such an encroachment would be permissible. Mr. Wale stated that he is proposing to provide some land - scaped'buffering between the alley and the unit garages. Mr.. Wale discussed the advantages that.such landscaping would provide and urged that landscaping be permitted in the subject area. Mr. Wale opined that tandem parking .,will encourage off -'. project parking inasmuch as people will park boats, etc. in the parking areas instead of cars. -10- MISSIONERS July 19, 1984 MINUTES T n x • M S ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX i� • In closing, Mr. Wale stated that he would object to the project being approved subject to the Conditions of Approval'recommended by staff. Andy Peralez, 310 Fernando, appeared before the Planning Commission.and advised that he resides in the Newport Bay Towers, which is situated immediately adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Peralez discussed his concern with the proposed reduction of the side yard setback as well as his concern with the provision'of wood- burning fireplaces in the units.. Mr. Peralez stated that Mr. Wale has agreed to install glass fronted fireplaces and to install artificial' logs within those fireplaces. Mr. Peralez urged that the Planning Commission include the provision of glass= fronted fireplaces and artificial logs as Conditions of Approval. Additionally, Mr.. Peralez expressed his objection to' any : waiver being granted from the established height limit. Phil Campbell, 413 -1/2 Edgewater;' appeared before the Planning Commission and relayed his concern with area traffic. Mr'. Campbell opined that the project should not be approved until such time as the Traffic Engineer has had an opportunity to study the traffic situation in the area. Wenton Ashton, 309 Coronado, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he is the owner of 306 Fernando, which is located on the alley, adjacent to the property in question. .Mr. Ashton.discussed his concern with area traffic as well as his concern relative to.use of the alley for vehicular access to the Wale development.. Mr. Ashton expressed his opposition to the application due to the intensity of the project as well as his belief that the project would be contrary to surrounding devel- opment in the Balboa area. Bob.shrimmer, 407 East Edgewater,:appeared before the Pla ning Commission and questioned whether the'City's Traffic Affairs Committee has considered the feasibility of re- designating the alley behind Edgewa- ter.for one -way traffic. -11- m m • S m � m Me -� oMe E July 19, 1984 of Newport Beach MINUTES City Engineer Webb reviewed that at the time the Planning Commission considered the Art's Landing project, the Commission suggested that an investigation be made rela- tive to the possibility of redesignating the alley behind Edgewater for one -way traffic.- Mr. Webb stated that both the Traffic Engineer and he agree that such a redesignation would be possible, provided the area residents desire such a change. It was noted, however, that the City will not institute such a study until such time as a formal request has been received from the area residents. Mr. Shrimmer stated his opposition to the proposed project due to his concern.with area density. Mr. Shrimmer stated that he would like to see the property developed, but in a less intense manner. In addition, Mr. Shrimmer discussed his concerns related.to tandem parking, curb openings on Cypress Street, and - annoyances - associated with the con- struction process. - - Commissioner Person discussed the difficulty associated with.downzoning a piece of property after an individual has purchased land with a particular zone applied to it. Mr. Shrimmer stated that he doubts that the value of the property would.be decreased by- _ :downzoning. He stated that a member of the City Council has indicated that a study of the Peninsula should be accomplished prior to further development being-approved for the Peninsula. Planning Director Hewicker advised that,Council.Member Plummer did.express an interest in.a Peninsula study. Mr. - Hewicker added, however, that..a majority of the City Council did not indicate.concurrence ' with.Council Member Plummer's suggestion,.and hence staff was not directed to commence such a,study. INDEX Commissioner Goff pointed out that the applicant proposes to replace ten units with nine units, and pointed out that the nine condominium units are likely to. be occupied with 'year -round residents; whereas the present cottages are frequently.occupied on a weekly basis. - • Mr. Shrimmer commented.that the, present cottages are densely occupied in the summer, but are seldom occupied during the remainder of the year. Additionally, Mr..Shrimmer relayed his opposition to.the proposed mass of the project. -12- July 19, 1984 MINUTES m n' x �E V � • m a ° = City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • • Commissioner Goff concurred with Commissioner.Person's statement relating to the unfairness.of downzoning a project after an.applicant has designed a project and has approached the City for approval. - Stan Sharp,.314 East Bay,.appeared before the Planning Commission and advised that he resides directly adjacent to the,propdsed.project.. Mr. Sharp stated that he generall: supports the project since the development will replace ten small, weekly rental units, as well as the fact that 18 additional off- street parking spaces will be created. Mr. Sharp .. related that his primary.concern with the project pertains to the proposal that vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley.,' Mr. Sharp stated that such a situation would' be undesirable inasmuch as children play in the alley and a potential would .exist for `damage .to his property. - Chairperson Winburn ;.questioned - whether the Applicant would accept a three -week continuance of his applications to enable him am opportunity'to work out differences with staff. Mr. Wale responded that he would not accept a continuance. Mr. Wale pointed out that although he does, not agree with all of the policies of the City, staff has done an excel- lent job in connection with the project. Mr. wale referred to Mr..ShrimMer's comment that the property should be downzoned, and pointed out that the property was originally zoned for "high- rise" development, and was subsequently downzoned to R -4. Commissioner Person referred.to,'Mr. Wale's statement that he, would. oppose.'approval.of.the.project subject to the 'Conditions recommended `in.the staff report. Commissioner Person commented:that the Conditions conform to City ordinances and voiced his reluctance to approve a project that deviates from City Codes. Inasmuch as the-Conditions comply with City Codes, Commissioner Person questioned whether Mr.' Wa-le.would be willing to comply with the Conditions of Approval as written. Mr. Wale responded that.he would comply with the Conditions of Approval. -13- • L • IV\ /VM:33" IOV July 19, 1984 m v � City of Newport Beach Commissioner King requested clarification.relative to the restriction for alley, landscaping. .MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker stated that 'there is a restric- tion that a 5 -foot setback be maintained free and clear of all obstruction so as to allow ingress and egress to the garages, etc. that take their access from the alley. City Engineer Webb added.that the landscaping, as proposed, would not limit access to the garages.of Mr. Wale's units, but would limit the.ability of someone across the.alley to back out of their garage. Mr. Webb pointed out that the 5 -foot setback is needed for maneuvering purposes. Phil Campbell reappeared before the Planning Commission and questioned whether City services can support the pro- posal in question With respect to the alley behind Edge- water, Mr. Campbell felt that it should not be made one - way, but rather that one end should be closed off to entering traffic.' Mr. Wale reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the report prepared by the Newport Economics Group: is.inconclusive and reviewed alleged omissions and inaccuracies .. contained therein.. In particular, Mr. Wale stated that the,report does not take into consideration the project's absorption rate.. During the course of dis- cussion, Mr. Wale relayed his objection to being required to disclose financial information, and relayed his opinion that it is unfair to require him to provide an affordable unit in a small project. Commissioner- King,stated that the economics of the project will not affect his vote. Planning Director'Hewicker questioned whether the Applicant is claiming that he cannot - :provide one unit affordable to a moderate- income.family. Mr. Wale responded that if he. can rent the unit, he will be able to make a profit, but added-that he objects to being required to disclose finan- cial information. -14- INDEX COMNUSSIONERSSI July 19, 1984 MINUTES M n x • M D m ° m City of Newport Beach MONEEMEEMEEMENNOM ROLL CALL III lif I INDEX • Mr. "Wale continued his comments relative to his concerns with the.recommended Conditions of Approval; as follows: With respect to Condition No. ll.of Tentative Tract Map No. 12208, which.provides that PCC- gutter be constructed along the East.Bay Avenue, Mr. Wale stated that the entire gutter was replaced four years ago. In connection with Condition No. 2 of Use Permit No. 3101, which addresses required setbacks, Mr. Wale stated his belief that he should be able to maintain the setbacks as presented in the project. Relative to Condition No. 5 of Use Permit No. 3101, which requires that the proposed skylights be redesigned to conform to the requirements set forth in the zoning Code, Mr, wale - stated -his opposition to this provision inasmuch as the skylights are not visible from any side of the structure. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public heating was closed.. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Assis- tant City Attorney Gabriele stated that the report that was prepared by Newport Economics Group, to whatever extent there may be some economic deficiencies, meets' the general requirements of'the law. He added that State Law does: not set forth any .uniform - criteria -upon which "feasibility study" is defined, and.added that it is left to individual jurisdictions to rely on whatever level of expertise it can obtain within its departments or by retaining an economic consultant. Motion I I I JxJ I I Motion.was made for approval. of Tentative Tract Map No. 12208, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A". Commissioner' Goff questioned whether the maker of the motion would .accept an amendment to -the motion so as to delete Finding 5.and'to reword Condition No. 12 to read, "That the project be redesigned so that all vehicular • access to.the property be from the adjacent alley." Commissioner King responded that he did not wish to revise the motion, citing his reluctance to redesign the project at this.time and his desire for the City Council to make the determination with.respect to curb cuts on Cypress.' -15- Substitute Motion • Ayes Nayes All Ayes m n � � s V v m o n X G) � Ixix Ix July 19, 1984 of NewDort Beach MINUTES Substitute motion.was made for approval of.Tentative Tract Map'NO. 12208i subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhihit. "A ", with revisions as follows: 1) That.Finding No: 5 be deleted; and 2) That Condition No. 12 be revised to.read, "That the project be redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley." Commissioner Person clarified that his vote to support the project in question should not be construed as his approval of the area zoning. .Commissioner Person advised that the Planning Commission does not have the power to rezone property once an applicant submits a. development application. Provided a.project conforms with existing City standards and is appropriate in terms of the currently existing zoning, Commissioner Person stated -that he is ... reluctant to redesign or deny a project. Commissioner King indicated his concurrence with Commis- sioner Person's statement. Commissioner King discussed his support for the project, commenting that all of the tenants' vehicles will be enabled to park on -site, rather than on the street. Commissioner.Goff's amended motion was then voted on and FAILED. Commissioner King's original motion was then voted on and CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12208 Findings: 1. 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. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -16- INDEX m n � V O 3 F 0 i • • July 19, 1984. z 3. That the site is physically suitable for the develop- ment proposed. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not.conflict with.any easements, acquired by the.public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5. That approval of curb openings on Cypress Street will,not result in the loss of on- street parking spaces :, inasmuch as.parking.is presently not per - mitted 6n the westerly side of Cypress Street. MINUTES 6. That the Planning Commission has determined that the inclusion:of one.unit affordable to a.County moderate- income family within'the project is feasible. CONDITIONS: 1. That.a.final map be recorded. 2. That all improvements.be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public.Works Department. 3. That a standard.subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of.the public improvements if it is desired to record a final map or obtain a building permit prior to.completion of the public improvements. 4. 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. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic`Engineer. 6. That a 15 -foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenue be dedicated to the public. -17- INDEX • COMMISSIONERS July 19, 1984 m n x f ' $ T 1 'am o'er xpc of Newport Beach .MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL I I I I I I H I INDEX I Is • 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval.of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Depart- ment and the Public Works Department. 8. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on.standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 9. That a.hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved.by the Public works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the.on -site improvements prior to recording.of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of, the developer. That.prior to..issuance of any grading or building permits for the.site., the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning.Department that adequate sewer facilities.w.ill be available for the project. Such demonstration shall.include verification from the City's Utilities Department. . That PCC.gutter be .constructed along the East Bay Avenue frontage and that any deteriorated curb and sidewalk be reconstructed; that the curb and gutter along Cypress Street be reconstructed to provide . drainage along.with the construction of a storm drain system,.i£'required,, that the deteriorated sidewalk along the Cypress Street frontage be reconstructed; that a.20' radius curb return be constructed along with a curb access ramp per City STD 181 -L.at the intersection of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenue; that the adjacent unimproved 15' wide alley be improved with..concrete:.per City STD 140 =L; that the existing substandard.alley approach on East Bay be reconstructed per City Standards; and that street lights (per City STD 200 -L) be provided along the East Bay frontage and Cypress Street frontage as approved by the Public works Department. IM • COMMISSIONERS I July 19, 1984 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • :Motion All Ayes U 12. That.approval of the City.Council shall be obtained for the proposed curb openings.on Cypress Street, or-the project shall.be redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property is from the adjacent alley. . 13. That prior to the recordation of the Final Tract .Map, the applicant shall pay the required fees .pursuant to the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. 14.. That.prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map,. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the .City guaranteeing the provision of one unit affordable to a County moderate income family for a period of no less than 10 years. Motion was made•for.approval of Use Permit. No. 3101, sub- ject to the Findings and Conditions set £orth.in.Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED USE PERMIT NO. 3101 Findings: '1.. That each of the.proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate individual utility. connections. 2. The project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval; except for.a side yard encroachment. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4..,That.the proposed development is consistent with the General Pian'and Adopted Local.Coastal Program, Land Use Plan', and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -19- M n R f M � v c of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • :Motion All Ayes U 12. That.approval of the City.Council shall be obtained for the proposed curb openings.on Cypress Street, or-the project shall.be redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property is from the adjacent alley. . 13. That prior to the recordation of the Final Tract .Map, the applicant shall pay the required fees .pursuant to the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. 14.. That.prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map,. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the .City guaranteeing the provision of one unit affordable to a County moderate income family for a period of no less than 10 years. Motion was made•for.approval of Use Permit. No. 3101, sub- ject to the Findings and Conditions set £orth.in.Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED USE PERMIT NO. 3101 Findings: '1.. That each of the.proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate individual utility. connections. 2. The project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval; except for.a side yard encroachment. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4..,That.the proposed development is consistent with the General Pian'and Adopted Local.Coastal Program, Land Use Plan', and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -19- • July 19, 1984 . MINUTES of Newport Beach 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circum- stances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace; comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in.the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. . 7. The proposed side yard setback encroachment is compara- ble to existing setbacks of other properties in the area and adequate open space will be provided elsewhere on . the site. Therefore, approval of the requested encroachment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of per- sons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the pro- posed modification is consistent with.the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 8. That the proposed use.will be less intensive than the existing use (as.defined in Section 15.38 of the Municipal Code), and therefore, a fair -share contri- bution is not warranted in this case. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved.plot plan, floor plans and eleva- tions, except as noted below. 2. That the structure shall he redesigned so as to main- tain the required 3 7foot front yard setback along Cypress Street; and a minimum setback of .5 feet adja- cent to the northerly side property line. -20 -. INDEX m n x m • July 19, 1984 . MINUTES of Newport Beach 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circum- stances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace; comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in.the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. . 7. The proposed side yard setback encroachment is compara- ble to existing setbacks of other properties in the area and adequate open space will be provided elsewhere on . the site. Therefore, approval of the requested encroachment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of per- sons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the pro- posed modification is consistent with.the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 8. That the proposed use.will be less intensive than the existing use (as.defined in Section 15.38 of the Municipal Code), and therefore, a fair -share contri- bution is not warranted in this case. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved.plot plan, floor plans and eleva- tions, except as noted below. 2. That the structure shall he redesigned so as to main- tain the required 3 7foot front yard setback along Cypress Street; and a minimum setback of .5 feet adja- cent to the northerly side property line. -20 -. INDEX • • Motion All Ayes • MMIJJICJIVtKJ July 19, 1984 OC m n` x V City of Newport Beach 3. That no landscaping shall be permitted at grade in the 5 -foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley Furthermore', that.the portion of the building that is permitted to encroach 2'6" into the rear yard setback shall have a minimum ground clearance of 8 feet. 4. That the proposed'wall shown.adjacent to East Bay Avenue shall be reduced in height to three feet. 5. That the proposed skylights shall be redesigned to conform to the requirements set forth in the Zoning Code. 6. That all applicable Conditions.of Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208 be fulfilled. MINUTES 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months in accordance with Section 20.80.090A of the Municipal Code. Motion was made for approval of 'Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 6,. subject to the Findings and Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed development is'not.exempt. from the provisions of State law relative to low- and moderate - income housing units within the Coastal Zone. 2. That the.Planning' Commission ' has determined that it is feasible to provide one 'on -site rental or owner- ship unit that is affordable to a moderate- income household, as defined by the County of Orange. -21- INDEX r 1 LJ • July 19, 1984 M Cnn,i i Yi nn 1. That all conditions of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208 and Use Permit No. 3101 shall be fulfilled. * * * Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. * * * MINUTES *Note: Commissioner King stated that he neglected to include additional Conditions in the'totion on Agenda Item No. 4 to require the provision of glass- fronted fireplaces and artificial logs, which the applicant agreed to provide in response to the concerns of adjacent residents. Commis- sioner King requested that the City Council be advised of this omission so that it can consider imposing said Condi- tions at the time Use Permit No. 3101, Residential Coastal Development. Permit No. 6, and the Tentative Map..of Tract 12208 are before the City Council. : x * Use Permit. NO. 3.103 (Public Hearing) INDEX Item #5 Request to change the operational characteristics of the U.P. #3103 "Studio.Cafe" Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages (formerly the Hungry Tiger) so as to allow live.enter- Continued tainment in conjunction with the restaurant operation. to 8/9/84 LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 107 -40, Resubdivision No. 552), located at 3201 East Coast Highway on the south- westerly side of East Coast Highway at the easterly terminus of Bay - side Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Studio Cafe, Corona del Mar OWNER: Eugene Boero', Corona del Mar -22- m n x V m 1 v o > x c w o . 0 3 r 1 LJ • July 19, 1984 M Cnn,i i Yi nn 1. That all conditions of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208 and Use Permit No. 3101 shall be fulfilled. * * * Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. * * * MINUTES *Note: Commissioner King stated that he neglected to include additional Conditions in the'totion on Agenda Item No. 4 to require the provision of glass- fronted fireplaces and artificial logs, which the applicant agreed to provide in response to the concerns of adjacent residents. Commis- sioner King requested that the City Council be advised of this omission so that it can consider imposing said Condi- tions at the time Use Permit No. 3101, Residential Coastal Development. Permit No. 6, and the Tentative Map..of Tract 12208 are before the City Council. : x * Use Permit. NO. 3.103 (Public Hearing) INDEX Item #5 Request to change the operational characteristics of the U.P. #3103 "Studio.Cafe" Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages (formerly the Hungry Tiger) so as to allow live.enter- Continued tainment in conjunction with the restaurant operation. to 8/9/84 LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 107 -40, Resubdivision No. 552), located at 3201 East Coast Highway on the south- westerly side of East Coast Highway at the easterly terminus of Bay - side Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Studio Cafe, Corona del Mar OWNER: Eugene Boero', Corona del Mar -22- Motion All Ayes r i so July 19, 1984 M Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3103 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. A. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) MINUTES Request to consider a traffic '.study -so as to permit the construction of a multi -use Aquatic Center in the Unclassi- fied District. 0 B. Use Permit No. 3104 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of 'a multi -use Aquatic Center in the Unclassified District which includes indoor boat storage,.an indoor exercise room, training hostel, coordinator apartment, locker rooms, weight training room, sports medicine room, multi - purpose assembly room, boat workshop, outdoor and indoor support facilities and related off -street parking spaces. The proposal also includes a request.to construct the proposed building at a height of 28 feet with roof- mounted solar panels and clerestories at a height of 33± feet. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 165, Irvine's Sub- division., located at 420 North Star Lane on the northerly side of North Star Lane, easterly of White Cliffs Drive, in Westcliff. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANTS: City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Aquatic Center, New- port Beach OWNERS: City of Newport Beach and County' of Orange -23- INDEX Item #6 Traffic Study AND U.P. #3104 Both Continued to 8/23/84 m n � c Motion All Ayes r i so July 19, 1984 M Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3103 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. A. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) MINUTES Request to consider a traffic '.study -so as to permit the construction of a multi -use Aquatic Center in the Unclassi- fied District. 0 B. Use Permit No. 3104 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of 'a multi -use Aquatic Center in the Unclassified District which includes indoor boat storage,.an indoor exercise room, training hostel, coordinator apartment, locker rooms, weight training room, sports medicine room, multi - purpose assembly room, boat workshop, outdoor and indoor support facilities and related off -street parking spaces. The proposal also includes a request.to construct the proposed building at a height of 28 feet with roof- mounted solar panels and clerestories at a height of 33± feet. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 165, Irvine's Sub- division., located at 420 North Star Lane on the northerly side of North Star Lane, easterly of White Cliffs Drive, in Westcliff. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANTS: City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Aquatic Center, New- port Beach OWNERS: City of Newport Beach and County' of Orange -23- INDEX Item #6 Traffic Study AND U.P. #3104 Both Continued to 8/23/84 • Won All Ayes • July 19, 1984 City of Newport Beach MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker advised that staff has provided the Planning Commission with a copy'of.the property lease, which was .drafted on July 1, 1982. Additionally, Mr. Hewicker.aduised that the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation has indicated his intent to submit the subject - proposal to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for operational review subsequent to the Planning Commis - sion's review. If,.however, the Planning Commission desires direction from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, Mr. Hewicker advised that staff can schedule the matter for Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review earlier than originally planned. The public hearing was opened in connection.with this item and Bill Whitford, 406 Snug Harbor Road, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Aquatics Center. Mr. Whitford requested 15 minutes for his presentation. Motion was made to allow Mr. Whitford 15 minutes in which to give his presentation,.which MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Whitford provided a slide presentation which described the proposed Aquatics Center. During the course of the slide presentation, it was advised that the main objective of the Newport Aquatics Center is to encourage and provide for public participation.in human- powered aquatic events. Additionally, it was specifically noted that a marina is not planned. The project was described as follows: The focus of the Center will be a boat - storage building, with an adjacent maintenance platform and water -level launching dock. The multi - purpose section of the Center is proposed to include lockers, a meeting room, training area, and a sports.medicine facility. In another area of the Center, a boat simulator, public restrooms,.paddling tanks and a performance testing facility are planned. With respect to parking facilities, it was advised that a parking area is proposed to be located adjacent to the facility with access being provided by an internal road from.North Star Drive. It was also noted that the funding for the construction and operating costs for the facility will be through pri- vate donations, with a monthly use fee being charged for members. -24- INDEX m n � ' f � E T July 19, 1984 City of Newport Beach MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker advised that staff has provided the Planning Commission with a copy'of.the property lease, which was .drafted on July 1, 1982. Additionally, Mr. Hewicker.aduised that the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation has indicated his intent to submit the subject - proposal to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for operational review subsequent to the Planning Commis - sion's review. If,.however, the Planning Commission desires direction from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, Mr. Hewicker advised that staff can schedule the matter for Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review earlier than originally planned. The public hearing was opened in connection.with this item and Bill Whitford, 406 Snug Harbor Road, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Aquatics Center. Mr. Whitford requested 15 minutes for his presentation. Motion was made to allow Mr. Whitford 15 minutes in which to give his presentation,.which MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Whitford provided a slide presentation which described the proposed Aquatics Center. During the course of the slide presentation, it was advised that the main objective of the Newport Aquatics Center is to encourage and provide for public participation.in human- powered aquatic events. Additionally, it was specifically noted that a marina is not planned. The project was described as follows: The focus of the Center will be a boat - storage building, with an adjacent maintenance platform and water -level launching dock. The multi - purpose section of the Center is proposed to include lockers, a meeting room, training area, and a sports.medicine facility. In another area of the Center, a boat simulator, public restrooms,.paddling tanks and a performance testing facility are planned. With respect to parking facilities, it was advised that a parking area is proposed to be located adjacent to the facility with access being provided by an internal road from.North Star Drive. It was also noted that the funding for the construction and operating costs for the facility will be through pri- vate donations, with a monthly use fee being charged for members. -24- INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 July 19, 1984 m V � • 'v m o n x S �om; =gym of Newport Beach MINUTES 0 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX • Bruce.Arita, of Pulaski and Arita, appeared before the Planning Commission and reviewed the site plan. Mr. Arita stated that the "heart" of the Center would be the boat storage and locker facility.. Mr. Arita discussed the pro- posed parking area, advising that 125.stalls are proposed to be dedicated to the Center, with 26 stalls available for public use. Additionally, Mr. Arita discussed the suitability of North Star Beach for the proposed Aquatics' Center. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Whitford stated that a.60' boat is the maximum length of boat that will be utilized by the Center. Mr. Whitford advised that the boats will be transported by trailers, which will be pulled by cars. Fred Talarico,.of Sanchez- Talarico and.Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Talarico stated that Mr. Whitford and he have recently spoken with the President of the Mariners Community Association, as well as the Directors of the Dover Shores Community. Association. Mr. Talarico relayed that both associations would like addi- tional time in which to review the project. Mr. Talarico requested, therefore, that the subject applications be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1984. Commissioner Goff suggested that the applicant's representa- tives be prepared to discuss the following at the August 23, 1984 public hearing: 1) Assurance that the Bay won't be adversely affected by fiberglass repair; and 2) elabora- tion pertaining.to the need for an amplified public address .system. - Commissioner Turner reviewed that Proposition "0 ", which was on the ballot two years ago, asked voters whether or not they wanted to approve the use of North Star Beach for an Aquatics Center. Commissioner Turner noted that the concept of the Aquatics Center was approved at that time by approximately 67% of the voters. Commissioner Turner then discussed his concern that the, voters did not realize the magnitude of the proposal at the time of said election. -25- COMMISSIONERS July 19, 1984 MINUTES m n x 9 � • > > m ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • L Ccmmissioner:Eichenhofer expressed her concern with the proposed size of the facility and 'questioned whether a .room for sports medicine is necessary. Mr. Talarico responded that the provision of a sports medicine facility would add to the dimension of.the.Aquatics Center. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer relative to.whether any motored boats would he utilized, Mr. Talarico advised that with the exception of one or two Boston' Whalers, no motored vessels would,be used. Commissioner Person questioned whether any.commercial activity is planned in terms of providing human- powered craft to the general public. Mr. Talarico responded that the object of the Aquatics Center is to provide the public with access to the bay in connection with the utilization of human- powered craft. He added, however, that the Aquatics Center would not be a commercial rental facility. Commissioner King discussed- theimportance.of a sports medicine facility.. Additionally, Commissioner King requested that the applicant provide the Planning Commis sion with the following: 1) a copy of the ballot issue so as to enable the.Commission to compare the proposal submitted to the voters with the proposal in question; 2) additional narrative with respect to how the balance of the property would be treated, how public access would be taken, as well as the controls which would be exercised over the general public in using the balance of the beach property. Peter Drummond, 1706 Antigua Way, appeared.before the Planning Commission and stated that.he is the President of the Dover,Shores Community Association. Mr. Drummond voiced concern that the proposed scope of the Aquatics'' Center appears to be substantially greater than was pre- sented on the ballot two years ago. Additionally, Mr. Drummond discussed his belief that the proposed facility will negatively impact an established residential area of the community. Mr. Drummond specifically noted his con- cern related to the anticipated traffic generation, the height of the proposed structures which may impact the views from some of the area homes, as well as lighting and the public address sytem. During the course of his -26- COMMISSIONERSI July 19, 1954 MINUTES • m n x � � c m a ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX presentation, Mr. Drummond urged that the cost effective- ness of the project be evaluated. Additionally, Mr.. Drummond commented that if a multi- purpose facility of the capability and capacity being proposed is needed at one single location, it should be located at a where no established residential community would be impacted. Ed Benson, member of the Board of Directors of the Dover Shores Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Benson questioned what would become of the facility if the Aquatics Center were discontinued. Mr. - Benson -also questioned whether the membership will be limited to local residents and /or a specific number of participants. Commissioner Person questioned whether the applicant would conduct a view analysis from the homes which look down to the subject site and provide the Planning Commission.with • the results of said analysis. Mr. Talarico agreed to provide the Commission with the requested view data. Terry Moran, 305 North Star Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission and relayed his objection to the pro- posed magnitude of the facility. Mr. Moran voiced his concern that the value of his property will be,adversely affected, as well as his concern with the anticipated' traffic level. It was Mr., Moran's contention that the Aquatics Center should be situated in a commercially zoned area where residential areas would not be impacted. Kim Charney, 214 Evening Star Lane; appeared before the Planning Commission and 'discussed his opposition to the proposed Aquatics Center. Additionally, Mr. Charney cited his disagreement with the Negative Declaration wherein it states that, "the subject' development will not result in a significant.affect on the environment." Barnett Larks, 1901 Beryl Lane,'appeared before the'Plan- ning Commission and,.expressed, his opinion that the scope of the project is unsuitable for a residential area. Mr. .Larks also voiced his concern with the anticipated traffic level and related noise impacts. Additionally, Mr. Larks mentioned that the facility will be utilized by members, and:not the general public. -27- July 19, 1984 .MINUTES M n x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL IINDEX • Motion All Ayes i Commissioner Person requested that the applicant. attempt to ascertain how the electorate envisioned the aquatics center at the time it was voted on.in 1982. Mr. Talarico responded that he doesn't know how such information can be obtained, but stated that he would work with staff to determine whether they can arrive at any concepts. Mr. Talarico pointed out that the slide show that was presented this evening is the same presen- tation that was shown to numerous organizations and indi- viduals in '1982. Mr. Talarico expressed that he is willing to work.toward a project that is acceptable to the City and to the community. Gloria Fahey, 1034 Pescador Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that although she doesn't believe the aquatics center should be situated on North Star Beach; she hopes that,.:in. the -event the proposal is approved, the exterior appearance of the structure will be designed in keeping with the atmosphere of the surrounding residential area. Tom White, 400 Evening Star Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission and relayed his belief that the elec- torate.was misled by the original ballot proposal for the aquatics center. Mr. White discussed his concerns relating to traffic, and the proposed public address syst Phyllis Franks, 222 Evening Star Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed her opposition to the project, focusing on the increased crime potential. Motion was made to continue the public hearing on this agenda item to the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission recessed at 10:45 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. * � x -28- M n x � � c m O m ry O > > n • • July 19, 1954 MINUTES of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 3105 (Public Hearing) Request to change the operational characteristics of the existing "Cafe Lido" Restaurant so as to allow live enter - tainment in conjunction with the restaurant operation. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Thirtieth Street Architects, Newport Beach OWNER: Pelican Properties, Santa Ana The public-hearing was opened in connection with this item and John Loomis,.Applicant, appeared before the Planning.Commission and concurred with the Findings and Conditions recommended in the staff report. Commissioner.Goff referred:to proposed "Condition of Ap- proval.No. 2 which states "That live entertainment shall be permitted only within the building and all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed during performances." Commissioner Goff stated that he frequents Cafe Lido and has never seen the front door shut. Mr. Loomis responded that he also frequents Cafe Lido and has frequently seen the front door shut. He added that no complaints have been received and assured the Planning Commission that the owner of the restaurant does intend to abide by the imposed Conditions of Approval. Joe Sperrazza, owner of Cafe. Lido; appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the doors of the restaurant have been opened in.the past:.for.air circula- tion. Additionally, Mr. Sperrazza stated that no com- plaints have been received. Mr. Sperrazza then questioned the necessity for the subject Condition. Planning Director Hewicker responded that the purpose of the Condition is to attempt to confine the music to the interior "of the premises. -29- INDEX Item #7 U.P. #3105 Approved Condi- tionally COMMISSIONERS July 19, 1984 • Motion All Ayes of Newport Beach Commissioner King referred to.proposed Condition of Approval No'. 3 which. states "..'.that noise'emanating from the restaurant, including the live entertainment, not exceed 55dBA at the property lines." Commissioner King commented that it would be difficult to meet this Condition if doors and windows are left open. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Goff noted that proposed Condition of Approval No. 8 provides that the Planning'. Commission can 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. MINUTES Motion was subsequently made that .the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 3105, subject to the Findings and Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings:. 1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed change in the operational character- istics of the existing restaurant so as to include, live entertainment, 'will ' not increase the parking demand.of the restaurant. 4. That the establishment of live entertainment will be compatible with the existing restaurant facility. 5. That the Police Department does not anticipate any problems.with the live entertainment. -30- INDEX m n x �E • v M m o > x Gf ROLL CALL • Motion All Ayes of Newport Beach Commissioner King referred to.proposed Condition of Approval No'. 3 which. states "..'.that noise'emanating from the restaurant, including the live entertainment, not exceed 55dBA at the property lines." Commissioner King commented that it would be difficult to meet this Condition if doors and windows are left open. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Goff noted that proposed Condition of Approval No. 8 provides that the Planning'. Commission can 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. MINUTES Motion was subsequently made that .the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 3105, subject to the Findings and Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings:. 1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed change in the operational character- istics of the existing restaurant so as to include, live entertainment, 'will ' not increase the parking demand.of the restaurant. 4. That the establishment of live entertainment will be compatible with the existing restaurant facility. 5. That the Police Department does not anticipate any problems.with the live entertainment. -30- INDEX July 19, 1984 MINUTES m n x f � � • > > m m a City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX E • 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3105 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 restaurant operation shall be con- sistent with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2.- That the live entertainment-shall be permitted only within the building and all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed during performances. 3. That an acoustical engineer, retained'by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that noise emanating from the restaurant, including the live entertainment, does not exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. 4. That dancing shall not be permitted in the restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is approved. 5. That all restaurant employees shall be required to parkin the adjacent Municipal parking lots. 6. That no temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted to advertise the approved.live: entertainment. 7. That all trash areas shall be shielded or screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 8. That the Planning Commission may add /or modify condi- tions 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. -31- m n x f� v � X O c o � • • July 19, 1984 107 9. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as speci- fied in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Use Permit No. 3106 (Public Hearing) Request to convert an existing detached two -car garage into a second dwelling unit on property located in the R -1 District in accordance with'the provisions of Section 65852.1 of the California Government Code that permits a second dwelling unit if said residence is intended for one or two adults who are 60 years of age or over. AND B. Variance No. 1115.(PUblic Hearing) MINUTES Request to convert an existing two -car garage into a second dwelling unit which contains less than the maximum 600 sq, ft. of living.area- required for a dwelling unit. The proposed variance also includes a request to waive the third required off - street parking space in conjunction with the approval of the second dwelling unit. LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 39, First Addition, Newport Heights Tract, located at 504 Fullerton Avenue on the south- easterly side of Fullerton Avenue, between Clay Street and 15th Street, in Newport Heights. ZONE: - R -1 APPLICANT: Betty Davis, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -32- INDEX Item #8 U.P. #31061 AND Variance #1115 Both Denied • • July 19, 1984 L0J. 1 MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker advised that Use Permit No. 3106 is an application to create a second dwelling unit, i.e., a Granny Unit, on . a'single- family zoned property. Mr. Hewicker explained that this is the first application filed since the State Law was amended to require that cities either adopt legislation, or through a Use Permit procedure set forth by the State', allow the consideration of Granny Units. Mr. Hewicker stated that in this par- ticular case, the State Law.does. not preclude the ability of the City to assure that Granny Units adhere to. planning and zoning regulations of the City. Mr. Hewicker added that since the applicant is not proposing to comply with the City's parking requirements, nor comply with the City's minimum square footage requirements, the applicant has also requested a'Variance;.for which staff is recom- mending denial. Additionally, Mr. Hewicker commented . that the applicant commenced conversion of an existing garage without securing the 'required permits. Mr. Hew- icker stated that the Planning Commission has been pro - vided with several items of correspondence relative to the proposal, including some petitions and a letter from the Newport Heights Community Association. The public hearing was opened in connection with this agenda item and Finas Shaw, 17591 Mitchell North, Irvine appeared before the Planning.Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Shaw stated that the applicant believes a.unique situation surrounds her request and commented that approval.of the applications would result in no visible differences on the property. Mr. Shaw opined that the subject proposal will not affect the neighbors' property values inasmuch as no alterations to the building are proposed. With respect to the comments contained in the staff report' relative to possible' tan- dem parking, Mr. Shaw stated the applicant's opposition to same due to.the aesthetics associated therewith. Mr. Shaw stated that.the applicant would like to have the "Granny Unit" to help her financially in her retirement. He added that the applicant intends to rent the unit to one individual over 60 years of age. With respect to possible policing of the situation, Mr'. Shaw stated that the State of California has set forth three possible solutions, as follows: '1) evaluate compliance only when a complaint is registered; 2).require certification of occupancy on a 1 -3 year basis; or 3) design an audit program involving periodic site visits. -33- INDEX m n x z • c w+ 4 o o • • July 19, 1984 L0J. 1 MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker advised that Use Permit No. 3106 is an application to create a second dwelling unit, i.e., a Granny Unit, on . a'single- family zoned property. Mr. Hewicker explained that this is the first application filed since the State Law was amended to require that cities either adopt legislation, or through a Use Permit procedure set forth by the State', allow the consideration of Granny Units. Mr. Hewicker stated that in this par- ticular case, the State Law.does. not preclude the ability of the City to assure that Granny Units adhere to. planning and zoning regulations of the City. Mr. Hewicker added that since the applicant is not proposing to comply with the City's parking requirements, nor comply with the City's minimum square footage requirements, the applicant has also requested a'Variance;.for which staff is recom- mending denial. Additionally, Mr. Hewicker commented . that the applicant commenced conversion of an existing garage without securing the 'required permits. Mr. Hew- icker stated that the Planning Commission has been pro - vided with several items of correspondence relative to the proposal, including some petitions and a letter from the Newport Heights Community Association. The public hearing was opened in connection with this agenda item and Finas Shaw, 17591 Mitchell North, Irvine appeared before the Planning.Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Shaw stated that the applicant believes a.unique situation surrounds her request and commented that approval.of the applications would result in no visible differences on the property. Mr. Shaw opined that the subject proposal will not affect the neighbors' property values inasmuch as no alterations to the building are proposed. With respect to the comments contained in the staff report' relative to possible' tan- dem parking, Mr. Shaw stated the applicant's opposition to same due to.the aesthetics associated therewith. Mr. Shaw stated that.the applicant would like to have the "Granny Unit" to help her financially in her retirement. He added that the applicant intends to rent the unit to one individual over 60 years of age. With respect to possible policing of the situation, Mr'. Shaw stated that the State of California has set forth three possible solutions, as follows: '1) evaluate compliance only when a complaint is registered; 2).require certification of occupancy on a 1 -3 year basis; or 3) design an audit program involving periodic site visits. -33- INDEX m n x 0E V 0= ro i • v m o � 7c P $ July 19, 1984 M MINUTES INDEX In answer to.a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Shaw confirmed that the unit is substantially completed.with:no one.presently occupying the unit. Robert Galway appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he lives next door to the subject property. Mr. Galway stated that the applicant has been in the process of constructing the subject unit for one year, and opined that.the applicant has.no intention to abide by City regulations. Nelson Robinson, 505 Fullerton Avenue,:appeared before .the Planning Commission, and voiced his objection to sub- standard housing. Additionally, Mr. Robinson opined that the.applicant does not intend to abide by.City regu- lations. Milton Barnett, 2207 Clay Street,.appeared.before the • Planning Commission and voiced .concern that the proposal will change the character of the First Edition of Newport Heights. Additionally, Mr.. Barnett discussed his concerns relating.to traffic, off-street parking, and the possible setting of a precedent. Marjorie Barnett, 2207 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and elaborated on the dangers of setting a precedent. Sally Somers, 510 Fullerton, appeared before the Planning Commission.and spoke in opposition to the proposed pro- ject inasmuch as she felt the area should be restricted to R -1 use. Ms. Grant, 532 Fullerton, appeared.before the Planning Commission and expressed.hiis opinion.that.no rental units should be allowed in the subject area. Mrs. Davis, Applicant; appeared before the Planning Commission and.reviewed the background of the application. Mrs. Davis.stated that she is not proposing to change the property and stated that she is trying to comply with all City regulations. COMMISSIONERS July 19, 1984 MINUTES m z � � c v � • City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I INDEX Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes • • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kurlander noted that the City has received a petition signed by nearly fifty residents who oppose the proposal. Motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. 3106, sub- ject to the Findings contained in Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED. - - Motion was made for denial of Variance No. 1115, subject to the Findings contained in Exhibit "A", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the.granting of a variance to the residential off-street parking requirement is not necessary for .the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the subject property is large enough for the applicant to provide the third required parking space and to increase.the size of the proposed dwelling unit. 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances 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 in the same district - inasmuch as the sub- ject property is the same size and shape as other R -1 lots in the area and maintains a similar. level of development as other. R -1 lots in the Newport Heights area. 3. That the floor area of the requested dwelling unit is unsuitable for the.purposes of providing an acceptable amount of living space for a new, self - sustaining residential unit. -35- COMMISSIONERS July 19, 1984 MINUTES m n x v � m n m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX U 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3106 and Variance No. 1115 will, under.the.circumstances ' of the particu- lar use, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of.such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. Use - Permit No. 3048 (Review) (Public Hearing) One year Planning Commission review of Use%Permit No. 3048 which permitted the establishment of a temporary hand washing, waxing, and auto detailing facility in portable structures on property in the P -C District and the approval of a ground identification sign adjacent to East Coast Highway. LOCATION: Parcel No. .I of Parcel Map 108- 45 -46, (Resubdivision No. 560) located at 2166 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast- Highway,- between Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, in Newport Village. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Paul.Tostberg, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company -36- Item #9 U.P. #3048 (Review) Set for Revocation Hearing on 8/9/84 l.V /V\ /V%1.3.3 rv[iv July 19, 1984 M n x o F • a m n ° m City of Newport Beach Cl • MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is a one -year review of Use Per - Mit No'. 3048. Mr. Hewicker advised that staff has determined that some of the.imposed Conditions of Approval have not been fully complied with, i.e., Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 11, 13 and 16. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Paul Tostberg; Applicant, 513 -1/.2 Jasmine, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and brought attention to his letter, dated July 11, 1984, which.explains his position with respect to the issue at hand. Mr. Tostberg stated that it has always been his intent to fulfill all of the Conditions; however, he has been unable to do so since, until recently, the business has failed to show a profit. Mr. Tostberg added that he is now in a position to provide the required restroom facilities, and assured the Commission that he will abide by the Conditions of Approval if granted a time extension. In answer to a question posed by.Commissioner Person, Mr. Tostberg advised that'the establishment includes . a mobile car wash service truck that transports soap and water to enable cars to be washed off -site. In response to further inquiry, Mr. Tostberg' commented that the excess water that results from washing vehicles enters the storm .drains. .Commissioner Person brought attention to Condition of Approval No.. 2 which provides that, "The operation shall be limited•to the washing, detailing and.waxing of automobiles,:and shall be con- ducted entirely within the enclosed. canopies." Addi- tionally, Commissioner Person noted that the excess water that enters the storm drain system may eventually enter the Bay. Mr. Tostberg, responded that. the 'mobile '.car wash operation is essentially no different than individuals who wash their own cars in 'their driveways. Commissioner 'Kurlander. pointed out that the applicant accepted the Conditions of Approval one year ago, and that the washing of vehicles off - site is in violation of the imposed Conditions. -37- INDEX I.UM/%A15JiVNtKS July 19, 1984 MINUTES m T • > > m n ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX r1 LJ Motion bstitute ion. Ayes x Nayes x Planning Director Hewicker explained that the Use Permit does not authorize the applicant to maintain a base of operation for an off-site car- washing operation. He added that the Use Permit allows the applicant to wash vehicles on the premises in a situation where the soap, water, etc. will drain into a sanitary sewer system. Mr. Tostberg stated that he has operated the mobile car wash operation for two years prior to commencing business at the Corona del Mar location. Mr. Tostberg stated that his mobile car wash operation led to his establishing a business in Corona, del Mar. Mr.. Tostberg stated that he applied for the appropriate, licenses and permits to operate a mobile car wash service. Commissioner King responded that the applicant did not make. the Planning.Commission aware of the fact that he intended to continue to operate 'a mobile car wash service. Commissioner King stated that The Irvine Company informed him that they intend to develop the subject site in the near future. Commissioner King explained, therefore, that he would have difficulty in continuing to require the applicant to provide improvements in light of the-fact that they would require demolition in the near future to allow for the proposed development. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Person noted that -the Planning Commission's practice,,since he has been on the.Commission, has been that if an applicant comes into compliance between the time an issue is set for revocation and the time of the revocation hearing, the matter becomes moot. Therefore, motion was made.to set Use Permit No..3048 for.revocation on,September'20, 1984, so as to give the applicant eight weeks in which'to.comply with the imposed Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Goff.pointed out that the applicant stated one year ago -that he would comply with the Conditions of Approval, and noted that.this has not.been done. There - fore, substitute motion was made to set Use Permit No. 3048 for revocation on August 9,.1984; which MOTION CARRIED. CKM CONVAISSUNERS July 19, 1984 MINUTES m o � V 7 ' • > > m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • • Use Permit-No. 2080 and Variance No.: 1092 (Discussion) Review and discussion of the status of the Fun Zone project as it relates -to Use Permit No. 2080 and Variance No. 1092 which permitted the construction.of a retail commercial /office building, a ferris wheel that exceeded the height limit, and related parking areas on the Fun Zone property on the Balboa Peninsula. LOCATION: Lots 1 through 7,.Block B, Bayside Tract and portions of Section 35, Townshi-p.G South, Range 10 West, San Bernadino Meridian, located at 600 West Bay Avenue, bounded by East Bay,Avenue, Washington Street, Palm Street and Newport Bay, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Debbie Gray,.Newport Beach OWNER: Fun Zone Development Company, Newport Beach . Commissioner Person stepped down from the dais and refrained from deliberation on this agenda item due to a potential conflict of interest., Planning Commission noted that:the staff report on this agenda item indicates that since the Planning Commission action of May 10, 1984, no -plans have been submitted to the Building Department for review, and the applicants have not made contact with the Public Works or Planning Departments regarding the issuance of permits. In light of the fact that it would be impossible to satisfy all Conditions of Approval and have the plans checked by the Building Department in the time remaining, Planning Commission noted that Use Permit No. 2080 and Variance No. 1092 will expire on July 26, 1984. Planning Commission received and filed the staff report on this agenda item. -39- item, #10 U.P. #2080 AND Variance #1092 Received and Filed M n � v � ROLL CALL • n L_J July 19, 1984 MINUTES of Newport Beach Variance -No. 1114 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a'.s.ingle- family dwelling.on property located in the R -3 District which exceeds the maximum allowable building height on the front one -half of the property, located in the 24/28 Foot Height' Limitation District. LOCATION: Parcel No. 2 of Parcel Map 36 -3, (Resubdivision No. 274), located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boule- vard, at the southwesterly terminus of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: John R. McIntosh, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant - Planning Director Hewicker explained that the issue before the Planning Commission is a Variance request to allow a proposed' single- family dwelling to exceed the basic height limit on certain portions of the proposed building. Mr. Hewicker reviewed the background of the building site, and discussed the steepness associated with the subject property. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Tom Wells, Architect;; appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant.' Mr. Wells discussed the uniqueness of the,building'site, commenting that it is irregularly shaped: and situated between a six-story condominium on.the east, a three -story condomini- um.on the west, and a two -story house to the rear. Mr. Wells discussed the steepness of the site and advised that the property is completely below the view of the street. Mr. Wells.stated that the applicant is also requesting an additional Variance to enable the construc- tion of an open carport, as opposed to an enclosed SM INDEX Item #3 Variance No. 1114 Approved Condi- tionally July 19, 1984 .MINUTES m n x 9 • _ m n ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1IND= Motion All Ayes r1 u • garage space, so as to provide a more graceful entrance. Mr. Wells relayed his belief that the proposed project is a solution to the uniqueness of the site.and opined that the Variance request is within reason. Current Planning Administrator Laycock - stated .that staff did not advertise for an open carport. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made for approval of Variance No. 1114, sub- ject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances applying to the land, building.or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or condi- tions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the .same district, because of the steep topography of the site. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, since the irregular slope of the site precludes the entire .roof construc- tion of the single family dwelling within the required 24 foot height limit. 3. That the establishment, maintenance; and operation of the use; property, and building 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 neigh - borhood of such proposed use or detrimental or in- jurious to property and improvements in the neigh- borhood or the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the structure has been.designed to minimize alteration to the bluff face and to protect existing views from adjacent residences. -41- COMMISSIONERS1 July 19, 1984 MINUTES m v � i > > m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL ITINDEX 0 Conditions:- 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, sections; and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed.carport shall be redesigned so as to provide full side walls and an operating garage door 3. That all conditions of Variance No: 1095 (Amended) be fulfilled. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Building or Grading Permit, the applicant shall pay Fair -share for circulation.system improvements and noise walls as established by Ordinance. I I I I I I 5. This variance shall.expire unless exercised within Ij 24 months of the date of approval, as specified in Section 20:82.090,A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • x Planning Director Hewicker-advised.the Planning Commis- sion that the City has received a letter from the State Department of Housing and Community Development advising that the Housing Element, which was adopted by the City, conforms with the State's Housing Element. There being no.further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 12:05 a.m. JOHN KURLANDER, SECRETARY Newport Beach City Planning Commission -42- C Housing Element Adjourn- ment