Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1976COMMISSIONERS g y p W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting _ 8 M Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES x r Time: 7:00 p.m. ROU csu Date: August 5, 1976 ,vow Present X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS i R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Joanne Bader, Secretary ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Planning Commission's annual election of officers was conducted by an acclamation vote. The results are as follows: No-on X Motion was made that Jacqueline Heather be nominated for the office of Chairman. Motion X Motion was made that nominations be closed. All Ayes Jacqueline Heather was elected to the office of Chairman. Motion X Motion was made that Hall Seely be nominated for the office of First Vice - Chairman. Motion X Motion was made that nominations be closed. All Ayes Hall Seely was elected to the office of First Vice- Chairman. Motion X Motion was made that William Frederickson be nominated for the office of Second Vice - Chairman. Motion X Motion was made that nominations be closed. P+ Ayes William Frederickson was elected to the office of Second Vice - Chairman. -1- COMMISSIONERS 4� y .0 = L • f A m ; a, C11 A ia ROIL CAII Motion Motion All Ayes Motion Al Ayes Motion All Ayes 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mimict F 1078 MINUTES III _�_ , . INDEX X Motion was made that William Agee be nominated for the office of Secretary. X Motion was made that nominations be closed. William Agee was elected to the office of Secretary. X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 1, 1976 were approved as written. X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 15, 1976 were approved as written with the correction that on Page 18, the vote on Use Permit No. 1797 be revised to show that Commissioners Frederickson and Seely were absent from the meeting instead of voting against the application. Item #1 Request to permit the extension of a previously -. approved resubdivision that permitted the creation of twenty -one numbered parcels for commercial development, one lettered parcel for RESUB- DIVISION NO. 465 street purposes, and one lettered parcel for a common parking lot for the "Corporate Plaza" Community in Newport Center. APPROVED CONDI CONDI- -LY TIONALLY Location: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Sub- division, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 27 -17 ( Resubdivision No. 269) and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 58 -29 (Resub- division No. 404) on property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive and the future extension of Avocado Avenue, in Newport Center. Zone: P -C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Simpson - Steppat, Newport Beach -2- COMMISSIONERS • N x mA If N neu ru i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES - IMUCA The discussion on this item was opened to the public and the applicant, Dave Neish, Manager of;Planning Administration with The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and advised that The Irvine Company has finally secured Coastal Commission approval on this project; however, because of the amount of time it has taken, The Irvine Company is requesting an extension of Resubdivision No. 465 so the final maps can be recorded in an orderly manner. In response to a question by the Planning Commission concerning the status of the possible parking conflict between the Coastal Commission's requirement and the City's requirement, Mr. Neish advised that one of the conditions of approval put on them by the Coastal Commission was that the City- approved site plan require 300 less parking spaces than was approved by the City. • He further advised that at some point in time The Irvine Company will come back before the Planning Commission and request a Use Permit for a reduction in parking; however, he does not know exactly when that will be. In response to a question by the Planning Commission concerning the current status of the proposal for a transportation system within the Newport Center area, Mr. Neish answered that another condition of approval put on them by the Coastal Commission was that The Irvine Company designate a transit center site in the Newport Center area for the Orange County Transit District. He stated that, at the present time, they are working with the Transit District in researching possible sites in Newport Center which would accommodate a transfer facility. He further stated that The Irvine Company is also required to implement a shuttle system that would service Newport Center from the transit center facility. Mr. Neish advised that they have to have agreements endorsed by the State Coastal Commis- sion concerning both the transit facility site and the implementation system for the • shuttle system. He then advised that The Irvine Company anticipates having this by the first part of September. Mr. Neish stated that the Planning Commission might expect to see something -3- COMMISSIONERS A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • N p m MINUTES DMI Cw11 August 5, 1976 �^eV on the project within a year. In response to a question by the Planning Commission concerning whether Avocado will have to be extended in order to accommodate the transportation system, Mr. Neish answered that Avocado exists, at the present time, from San Joaquin Hills Road to Farralon Drive. He stated that upon the development of Corporate Plaza, Avocado would be extended from Farralon, south to Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that other developments would necessitate the widening.of Avocado Drive, but the current alignment will not change. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public portion of this discussion was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make All Ayes the following findings: • 1. That the office and commercial development proposed by the approved Planned Community Development Plan is in conformance with the mixture of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Recreational and Marine Commercial" uses designated for this area by the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and all other elements thereof. 2. That a final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared by the City in compliance with CEQA and the State guidelines and the City Council has considered the information contained in the EIR and has certified it as complete. 3. That the resubdivision as proposed is necessary in order to implement the develop- ment contemplated by the approved Planned Community Development Plan. 4. That the resubdivision as proposed is in conformance with the Planned Community Development Plan and all local and state • regulations governing the division of the site. 5. That the approval of Resubdivision No. 465 -4- l . I COMMISSIONERS 9� D p m m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m r • p 1rr Qeu CAI August 5, 1976 MINUTES is consistent with the General Plan and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified by that plan. and that the approval of Resubdivision No. 465 be extended to September 24, 1978, subject to the following conditions: 1. That there shall be a document recorded satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development which provides for the continued maintenance and operation of the off - street parking and landscaped areas within the common area (i.e., Parcel "B ") and which provides for perpetual access to the buildings on Parcels 1 through 20. 2. Parcel No. 21 shall be utilized for land- . scaping purposes as illustrated on the Planned Community Development Plan. 3. That Amendment No. 434 shall be approved. 4. That the resubdivision be reviewed and approved by the City Council; with a finding of approval by the Council as to street alignments and widths as proposed and as recommended below. 5. That a Parcel Map be filed. 6. That all public improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department, except as otherwise modified herein. 7. That the half width of Avocado Avenue be dedicated and improved from Farallon Drive to East Coast Highway, including interim intersection channelization. In accordance with the provisions of the Capital Improvement Policy, the City will be responsible for the traffic signal at the intersection of Avocado with East Coast Highway. 8. That sidewalk be constructed along the southerly side of Farallon Drive. -5- COMMISSIONERS DO j A G D ? 7' { f A m m • N N A f RM I rAl I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES 9. That a traffic signal be constructed by the developer at the intersection of Farallon Drive and Newport Center Drive. 10. That the following requirements be established for East Coast Highway: a. Additional right -of -way shall be dedi- cated on the northerly side to provide for a total right -of -way width of 148.5 feet, measured from the existing southerly right -of -way line. This width is intended to provide ultimately for a substantial 2 -way bicycle trail and pedestrian way on the southerly side,.a shoulder /emergency parking lane on the southerly side, 6 through traffic lanes, a raised median island with double left turning lanes, a right turning lane on the northerly side, and a parkway and minimum sidewalk on • the northerly side. b. As part of the initial project development, the developer shall construct an additional lane on the northerly side of East Coast Highway from Avocado to Newport Center Drive, with an appropriate taper easterly of Avocado. c. The developer shall be responsible for the ultimate construction of curb, side- walk, and street lighting on the northerly side of East Coast Highway; with the work to be done at the time the ultimate highway improvements are constructed. A separate long- term agree- ment and surety may be provided for this work. d. In consideration for right -of -way dedi- cation, the developer shall be relieved from the obligation to construct improvements on East Coast Highway other than as set forth herein. (Note: It is contemplated that ultimate improvements on East Coast Highway would be constructed • under an AHFP or FAU project.) 11. That access to the perimeter streets be taken as shown on the plot plans submitted. -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. • a p MINUTES x ip August 5, 1976 ROLL CALL 2 All vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City on East Coast Highway, except for one location; on Newport Center Drive, except for one location; and on Avocado Avenue, except for two locations. The connection to East Coast Highway shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent vehicles exiting the site from turning left onto East Coast Highway. 12. That water capital improvement acreage fees be paid; and storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City. 13. That all public utility and storm drain easements be a minimum of 10 feet in width, with greater widths provided where required by the Public Works Department. 14. That standard subdivision agreements and . surety be provided to guarantee completion of the public improvements if it is desired to have building permits issued or the Parcel Map recorded prior to completion of the required improvements. 15. That the street dedication and improvement responsibility for East Coast Highway .established for this project be considered as complete in itself; and thus no credits be separately allowed under the City's Capital Improvement Policy. An appropriate credit for Avocado Avenue improvements shall be allowed as provided for in the policy. 16. That all grading be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a soils report to be prepared by a qualified soils engineer and approved by the City Grading Engineer. Special attention shall be directed to protecting the waters of Newport Bay. An interim protection plan shall be developed as part of the grading plan incorporating desilting facilities and other means as • needed to prevent siltation of the bay during the construction period. -7- COMMISSIONERS D� • ROLL CALL L7 D mp D C m D N x A r N 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES inuew 17. That compact car ratio in the parking lot be 10 %. 18. That any future signal light on Pacific Coast Highway at the private street intersection would be the responsibility of The Irvine Company. 19. That there be no connector street between Avocado and MacArthur. 20. That the lower three buildings, 18, 19 and 20, be restricted from restaurant use. 21. That occupancy be limited to 25% by 1979 and 75% by 1981 or sooner, based on completion of the bay bridge. Item #2 Request for site plan review of a contractor's SITE yard and related office in a Specific Plan Area PLAN where a specific plan has not been adopted. REVIEW NO. 2 Location: Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 325 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport APPROVED Beach, located at 506 -508 29th Street, CONDI- on the southerly side of 29th Street TIONALLY between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa Community Development Director Hogan advised that there has been some question as to the definition of "contractor's yard ". He added that there is no specific definition in the Ordinance as to what a contractor's yard is; however, Mr. Hewicker is prepared to discuss what staff's interpretation has been in the past. Assistant Director - Planning Hewicker advised that he would interpret a "contractor's yard" to -8- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES inuew 17. That compact car ratio in the parking lot be 10 %. 18. That any future signal light on Pacific Coast Highway at the private street intersection would be the responsibility of The Irvine Company. 19. That there be no connector street between Avocado and MacArthur. 20. That the lower three buildings, 18, 19 and 20, be restricted from restaurant use. 21. That occupancy be limited to 25% by 1979 and 75% by 1981 or sooner, based on completion of the bay bridge. Item #2 Request for site plan review of a contractor's SITE yard and related office in a Specific Plan Area PLAN where a specific plan has not been adopted. REVIEW NO. 2 Location: Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 325 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport APPROVED Beach, located at 506 -508 29th Street, CONDI- on the southerly side of 29th Street TIONALLY between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa Community Development Director Hogan advised that there has been some question as to the definition of "contractor's yard ". He added that there is no specific definition in the Ordinance as to what a contractor's yard is; however, Mr. Hewicker is prepared to discuss what staff's interpretation has been in the past. Assistant Director - Planning Hewicker advised that he would interpret a "contractor's yard" to -8- COMMISSIONERS >o ; A = � T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a • a A MINUTES August 5. 1976 INDEX be, generally, a fenced piece of property where a contractor would keep pieces of equip- ment, e.g., pipe, lumber and bins with sand, topsoil or rock. He further advised that it could include an office space, which he thinks would be ancillary to the main use of the property which would be for the contractor's storage. In response to a question by the Planning Commission as to what percentage of the property would have to be used for actual contractor's yard usage to qualify for the designation of "contractor's yard" as the primary designation, Assistant Director - Planning Hewicker advised. that over 50% of the property would have to be used for actual contractor's. yard usage. The discussion on this item was opened to the public and the applicant, Dana Smith, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that • the M -1 zone, as he understands it, does not require any parking spaces; however, he has become apprised of the Site Plan Review process, whereby the City can require parking as a condition of approval. He stated that parking is one of the uses he had intended for the property surrounding the office and that he has proposed six parking spaces. He advised that with the kind of construction he is in, he does not store a great deal of things in the yard, so it is not his intention to have large bins of sand or stacks of lumber. He advised that he takes delivery on appliances, etc. that might stay there for several days, but it isn't the kind of thing that would require large fencing or large amounts of items in the yard, so the parking requirement is really no problem. Mr. Smith advised that he does not think he can provide a large yard to store things in and also provide parking. He then pointed out storage and parking areas on the map. He stated that the parking requirement was requested by staff, but the M -1 zoning does not require parking. He,further stated that when the application was made for the construction yard, it was made under the Code that indicated a • person could have a contractor's yard and an ancillary office. He advised that at the time -9- COMMISSIONERS T. • D Cl p r DM I rAu it CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES -" - - INDEX the permit was issued, he was asked to designate some parking spaces, which he did. Mr. Smith explained that the reason the building is currently under construction, is that at the time the permit was issued, he was unaware of a "Site Plan Review" requirement and, consequently after the permit was issued, he started building. Community Development Director Hogan then advised of the uses the Code permits in this particular location; i.e., wholesale bakeries, creameries, bottling works, building material yards, contractor's yards, fuel yards, machine shops, lumber yards, building and repair of boats, research laboratories and institutes, instrument manufacturing, fabrication of plastic products, furniture upholstering, storage (i.ncluding storage of cement and lime incidental to a retail or wholesale business), manufacturing uses and any other uses which, in the opinion • of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature, but under the same limitati.ons and restrictions specified in sections governing same. He then advised of the uses the Code permits subject to the securing of a use permit; i.e., professional offices, restaurants, outdoor drive -in and take -out restaurants. Mr. Hogan stated that the question here is a matter of interpretation for the Commission as to whether the use that is being proposed is one that is close enough to the permitted uses in the M -1 District that the Planning Commission can agree that it is reasonable to approve it, or a use closer to those uses which would require a Use Permit and a noticed public hearing. Mr. Hogan further stated that generally, professional offices are interpreted to be those professional offices in which services such as medical, legal, engineering, architectural, etc. are supplied.. In response to a question by the Planning Commission as to whether Mr. Smith plans to use the office in a professional way or as a warehousing .type of operation, Mr. Smith replied that the office personnel will sit in the office and that the supplies will be kept out in the . yard, He stated that this is not a professional office in his opinion, but rather a work yard. He further stated that he is in the business of -10- COMMISSIONERS ➢oD A mY m c • N N a m enI o CAI u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES developing property and that he doesn't have clients in the sense of selling. He advised that the selling is usually done somewhere else other than on the premises. He then advised that he chose a manufacturing part of the City for his location, because this use is more of a work yard than a professional office. In response to a question by the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith advised that he has no immediate intention of adding a second story to the building. Community Development Director Hogan explained that staff has begun work on a Specific Area Plan for Cannery Village and further explained that until the Specific Area Plan is adopted, Site Plan Review is required if the floor area of a building is to be increased by an amount equal to 50% of the existing floor area of the building or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is lesser. • Mr. Smith advised that more than 50 or 60% of the property would be used for storage. He then advised that, based on the commercial requirements, he is only required to have five parking spaces... He stated that he plans to park equipment that is on wheels such as his truck and temporary sheds in the parking spaces. He stated that he doesn't believe that even under the strictest commercial code, six parking spaces are required. He then advised that he has two employees that are in the office all day that will be using the parking spaces and that the other employees are in and out all day. In response to a question by the Planning Commission as to how the six -space parking requirement was computed, Community Development Director Hogan advised that the staff came up with five parking spaces; Mr. Smith suggested the possibility of six parking spaces. The five -space parking requirement was computed by a comparison with the requirement for office space, i.e., the total amount of office space • was divided by 250 sq. ft. He further advised that although commercial uses do have a parking requirement, industrial uses do not. Planning Commission discussed whether six parking -11- COMMISSIONERS N ROLL CALL 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES IN 4J t.l spaces are needed for this use and whether four parking spaces would be sufficient and thus give Mr. Smith more space to store his equipment. Community Development Director Hogan advised that if the Planning Commission approves this application with four parking spaces, the applicant would be precluded from adding an additional story, unless he provides more parking spaces for that additional space. In response to a question by the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith advised that he would be willing to provide four parking spaces. He then concurred with the findings and conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. In response to a question by the Planning Commission as to what type of signing is anticipated, Mr. Smith advised that the sign • would probably be about four feet.long and located across the porch. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public portion of this discussion was closed. Motion. X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following findings:. 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and will not preclude the attainment of the General Plan objectives .and policies. 2. The proposed development will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 3. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets and public facilities within the area. • 4. The proposed development, subsequent to the applicant's modification of the subject plan to conform with Section 20.41.040(c) (rear yard) will comply with all applicable standards of Section 20.01.070 of the -12- COMMISSIONERS t • ROLL CALL E Ayes Noes 0 01 m 2 2 IU D ; N 0 z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES UVULA Municipal Code. and approve Site Plan Review No. 2 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed plan be revised to comply with Section 20.41.040(c) of the Municipal Code relating to rear yard setback require- ments. 2. That all recommended conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 528 be fulfilled. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of four usable and accessible parking spaces on the subject site. 4. That the proposed plan be revised to indicate the location and method of screening from public view of refuse containers. Commissioner Heather advised that she will vote against the motion as she views this as an office building which would require a Use Permit, although she feels the end result would probably be the same with the exception of having noticed to the surrounding people. X X X X X Commissioner Seely's motion was voted on and X carried. Item #3 Request to establish one building site and RESUB- eliminate an interior lot line where one lot and DIVISIO a portion of a second lot now exist so as to NO. 528 permit industrial development on the property. APPROVE Location: Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 6, CONDI- Block 325 of Lancaster's Addition TIONALLY to Newport Beach, located at 506 -508 29th Street, on the southerly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant -13- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES UVULA Municipal Code. and approve Site Plan Review No. 2 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed plan be revised to comply with Section 20.41.040(c) of the Municipal Code relating to rear yard setback require- ments. 2. That all recommended conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 528 be fulfilled. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of four usable and accessible parking spaces on the subject site. 4. That the proposed plan be revised to indicate the location and method of screening from public view of refuse containers. Commissioner Heather advised that she will vote against the motion as she views this as an office building which would require a Use Permit, although she feels the end result would probably be the same with the exception of having noticed to the surrounding people. X X X X X Commissioner Seely's motion was voted on and X carried. Item #3 Request to establish one building site and RESUB- eliminate an interior lot line where one lot and DIVISIO a portion of a second lot now exist so as to NO. 528 permit industrial development on the property. APPROVE Location: Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 6, CONDI- Block 325 of Lancaster's Addition TIONALLY to Newport Beach, located at 506 -508 29th Street, on the southerly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant -13- COMMISSIONERS O y T m 1 m C. IR r �S • N N p' m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa Public hearing was opened and Dana Smith, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and advised that he made this application to eliminate a lot line since he is required to have a ten -foot sideyard in an M -1 district if he is going to have windows or any kind of openings. He added that in as much as he has those, he would like to eliminate the lot line. In response to a question by the Planning Commission as to who will develop the alley behind this parcel, City Engineer Nolan advised that most of the unimproved alleys are being improved at a rate of about five to six a year under the provisions of Chapter 27 - Improvement Act of 1911. He added that it is not ordinarily a good idea to improve the alleys on a lot -by -lot basis because of drainage and utility replacement. • Mr. Smith advised that the alleys on both sides of him are presently paved with asphalt. City Engineer Nolan advised that in this case, since the alleys on either side of this unimproved alley are improved with asphalt, it would be appropriate to improve this alley with asphalt as well. With respect to paving the alley, Mr: Smith advised that the biggest expense from a developer's standpoint is getting the plan drawn. He then stated that if the Department of Public Works would draw the plan, then the City would be assured of drainage. He advised that if he had the plan from Public Works and the alley is to be paved with asphalt, he could lay it at the same time he lays in the parking lot. Mr. Smith advised that he had planned to improve the alley. City Engineer Nolan advised that the Public Works Department can provide grades and that he doesn't think this will be difficult to resolve. • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make All Ayes the following findings: -14- COMMISSIONERS ➢c > p m CITY OF m 3 r • N p Ire ROLL CALL 2 August 5, 1976 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES IN MA I. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to • cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing require- ments prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 528 subject to the following conditions: 1. That a Parcel Map be filed. 2. That all public improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department, including alley _improvements. • 3. That curb and gutter and sidewalk be constructed along the 29th Street frontage. -15- COMMISSIONERS f p ; • N � p f N ROtI CAII 4s 0 0-on All Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 5, 1976 INDEX IIIIIIIII Item #4 Request to create three parcels of land for RESUB- development. DIVISION NT. 529 Location: Parcel No. 2 of Parcel Map 75 -39 (Resubdivision No. 500) located at APPROVED 3600 Birch Street and 1551 Quail CONDI- Street, southeasterly of Birch Street TIONALLY and southwesterly of Quail Street in "Newport Place ". Zone: P -C Applicant: Emkay Development Co., Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates, Newport Beach Assistant Director Planning - Hewicker advised that Air California presently meets the parking requirements of the P -C zoning; however, they have found that their actual need is greater than that and they have entered negotiations with the Emkay Development Co. to purchase additional land for that purpose. Mr. Hewicker advised that this proposal would provide in excess of 100 additional parking spaces for the Air California office complex. He further advised that there would be a new drive approach on Birch.and showed on the rendering where through aisles would be located. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and Robert Bein, of Robert Bein - William Frost & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and concurred with the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. In regard to land- scaping, Mr. Bein advised that he plans to plant trees in the same places as shown on the drawing. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with -16- COMMISSIONERS Do ; * _ � 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH s . N A MINUTES o�„ ,,AI, August 5, 1976 —" INDEX IIIIIIII applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or.improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. ' 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing require- ments prescribed by a California.Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300), of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 529, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a Parcel Map be filed. 2. That Parcel No. 1 shall be designated on the Parcel Map as "Not a Separate Building Site ". or The property owner shall execute and record a covenant and agreement to hold Parcel No. 1 in combination with Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Maps 57/2 (i.e., the existing Air California site) until such time as the two -17- COMMISSIONERS f p ; • N xN p � ROIL CA A I • Motion All Ayes E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5. 1976 MINUTES INDEX sites can be resubdivided or combined or until the owner is released from the covenant and agreement by the City. Said covenant and agreement shall be prepared by the owner and submitted to the Director of Community Development and the City Attorney for approval. 3. That all public improvements be constructed as required by ordinance. 4. That all vehicular access rights to North Bristol Street be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach, except for the master p.lanned driveways as shown on the approved improvement plan for North Bristol Street. 5. That a 6 -foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk be con- structed immediately behind the curb along the Birch Street and North Bristol Street frontages. (Item #5 Request for structural alterations and room and USE PER - garage additions to two existing single- family MIT NO. dwellings, in the C -1 District. 1796 Location: Lots 9 and 10, Block 21 of the CONTINUE Newport Beach Tract located at 106 TO and 108 22nd Street in the SEPT. 2, McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. 1976 Zone: C -1 Applicant: Dell M. Williams, Corona del Mar Owner: Dr. C. W. Ackerman, Corona del Mar X In compliance with the applicant's request, Planning Commission continued this matter to its meeting of September 2, 1976. i -18- COMMISSIONERS lr;" .1 • � s ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES AugUSt 5.. 1976 INDEX Item N6 Request to permit the expansion of the "Pacific Coast Diner" restaurant facility. USE.PER- MIT N0. Location: A portion of Record of Survey No.: 1798 27 -47 located at 4501 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of APPROVED West Coast Highway easterly of CONDI- West Balboa Boulevard in West TIONALLY Newport. Zone: C -1 -H Applicants: David L. Fish and William H. Schreiber Newport Beach Owner: Thomas C. Rogers, Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and Lauren Anderson, representing the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the staff report and findings and conditions contained therein. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surroun.ding land uses. 2. The 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. 1798 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -19- COMMISSIONERS f p = L t • N xN p f ROIL CALL o2 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 5, 1976 rnucr and approve Use Permit No. 1798, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations. 2. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net floor area" in the restaurant.facility shall be maintained in the common parking lot. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from West Coast Highway. Item #7 Request to permit the construction.of a take -out USE PER - restaurant facility in Via Lido Plaza (formerly MIT N0, Richard's Lido Center). 1799 Location: Portion of Lot 3, Tract No. 1117, APPROVED portions of Lots 3, 6, and 7 in CONDI- Section 28, Township 6 South, Range TIONALLY 10 West, and a portion of an abandoned alley, located at 3433 Via Lido, on the southerly side of Via Lido between Newport Boulevard and Via Oporto. Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Orange Coast Developers, Long Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and Robert Borders, architect, 12062 Valley View Street, Garden Grove, appeared before the Planning Commission and, in response to a question by the Planning Commission, stated that the current fountain at the site would be redesigned and relocated into the main courtyard of the plaza. In answer to a question by the Planning Commission as to how many tables are contemplated to be put in the patio area, Mr. Borders replied there will probably be about -20- COMMISSIONERS m QALL CALL 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 5, 1976 MINUTES four. He then advised that this proposal will not be a total "take -out restaurant" in that people can eat inside if they desire. tie then advised that in their letter of justification, they indicated that their anticipated hours would be from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; however, they do not want to be restricted to those hours because they may possibly want to sell coffee at 7:00 a.m. and in the summer, they may wish to stay open as late as 8:00 p.m. Assistant Director Planning - Hewicker advised that business hours is not part of the.conditions of approval. In response to a question by the Planning Commission as to how they are planning to keep this area free from trash and debris, Mr. Borders advised that they propose to do this by having custom - designed trash containers available • to the public for disposing of their wrappers. Edwin Migge, of Orange Coast Developers, P.O. Box 980, Long Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission and advised that in his lease he is requiring that food be served on plates that will be returned to the tenant; he advised that the tenant will be using bone. china. He further advised that when the Goofoffers left, they had a great demand for an area where pedestrians could just sit and relax. He stated that the patio will be maintained by the tenants of the coffee house. He then stated that people that purchase food "to go ", must take the food home and not eat it on the premises. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of adding another condition to the approval that would require that food be served on plates that would have to be returned. Community Development Director Hogan stated that if another condition is desired by the Commission, it should be a condition that is relatively.easy to enforce and when it is violated, will be clearly evident that it is violated. He then advised • that if a condition was added that the area be kept free from trash and debris, that this too be a condition that we could enforce. In regard to restricting the type of .utensils that are going to be used, Mr. Hogan advised that he -21- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Rou uu August 5, 1976 thinks this could be a problem because although we have one tenant now, it may not end up being the same tenant. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make All Ayes the following findings: 1. That the proposed development.is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off - street parking spaces and traffic circulation are being provided for the proposed development. 3. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. • 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to parking, walls and land- j scaping, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1799 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1799, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations. 2. That all signs and lighting shall conform to Chapter 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 3. That the development standards related to walls and landscaping, and.a portion of the parking requirements are waived. -22- . / COMMISSIONERS vc ➢ � � � m • r p S L ROLL CALL y August Motion Al Ayes Motion All Ayes E Motion All Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 5, 1976 4. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent buildings as well as from Via Lido. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 958 RESOLU- setting a public hearing for September 2, 1976 TION N0, to consider an amendment to Title 19 and 958 Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code clarifying the responsibility for providing the names of owners and addresses for required notification. X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 959 RESOLU -. setting a public hearing for September 2, 1976 TION N0: 959 to consider an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to height limits for chimneys and vents, architectural features, flag poles and parapet walls, elevator and mechanical penthouses and mechanical equipment. X There being no further business, Planning Commission adjourned the meeting. TIME: 8:20 p.m. William Agee, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission -23-