Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/1975COMMISSIONERS m D � mxm ya n'^c: m n P RV CALL Present Motion All Ayes i 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 P.M. nn +c• Ounne+ 7 107G MINUTES unev , xxxxxx EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator Gail Pickart, Subdivision Engineer Shirley Harbeck, Secretary X Minutes of the regular meeting of July 17, 1975, were approved as written. Item #1 Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Land GENERAL Use and Residential Growth Elements to: 1) create PLAN a "Medium- Density Residential" category, 2) add a AMENDMENT NO. 26 definition of "buildable acreage," and 3) revise the wording of certain sections of the Elements.. NOT Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach P1C DROVED Community Development Director Hogan clarified the effect of the re- classification on some of the older and developed areas of the community. He advised that calculations of density in undeveloped areas cover the entire area except for the perimeter streets and the same formula would be used on developed areas, i.e., only the perimeter streets would be excluded. Consequently on locations such as Lido Isle or other similarly developed single family areas, the interior streets would be included in the density calcula- tions and the external streets would be excluded in order to treat developed areas the same as undeveloped areas. Most of the existing single family areas would, therefore, fall within a 10 dwelling units per acre category and should the Commission desire to consider the amendment, it is recommended that the maximum density of the proposed Medium Density Residential be changed to allow 10 dwelling units per acre. Page 1. i COMMISSIONERS CITY. OF NEWPORT BEACH DT= =qm£ m D .6 CALI T August 7 1975 MINUTES INDEX r , Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Paul Ryckoff, 1200 South Bayfront, Balboa Island, appeared before the Commission in connection with. this matter. He advised that it was not the intent of the proposed amendment to require any changes to the existing zoning which would cause problems to the City. He reviewed his memo. dated January 2, 1975, as to the recommended changes in the Residential Growth .Element which attempts to update the language and add the definition of "buildable acreage." As to the Land Use Element, he felt that 10 dwelling units per acre was inappropriate for Low Density and should be changed to 4 dwelling units per acre, and that a Medium Density should be established which would cover up to 10 dwelling units per acre. As stated in the staff report, he concurred that the Residential Growth Element should state the exact number of units which would be permitted on a given site in the undeveloped areas of the City. He felt that the definition of "buildable acreage" • would eliminate the confusion surrounding "net" and "gross" acreage. Planning Commission discussed the methods used by other jurisdictions in computing density and reviewed the various undeveloped areas within-the City which contain sloping land and would be affected by the change in definition to "buildable acreage." Duncan Halburton, 4507 Perham Road, Corona del Mar appeared before the Commission and questioned the future development of the land between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. Chairman Beckley advised that the property in question was not a part of this public hearing since it is outside the Newport Beach City Limits, however, The Irvine Company had made a presenta- tion to the Newport Beach Planning Commission at an afternoon study session as to the plans intended for submission to the County of Orange, the agency which has jurisdiction over the pro- perty. Mr. Halburton was advised to contact The Irvine Company if he desired to see the plans or obtain further information on the proposed • development. Page 2. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH '1 my Z'O Mi C� m m4 Y= mrc y - A s��eu m m Mimic+ 7 107E MINUTES unev a rwvcn Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the proposed amendment. He briefly reviewed the previous actions of the Planning Commission and City Council not to hear the pro- posed amendment because of the feeling that it had discriminatory implications which did not benefit the total community; was considered a piece -meal approach; and if necessary, a complete review should be done on a programmed basis with the whole or reasonable segments of the General Plan being reviewed at the same time. He felt that the proposal was still arbitrary and that the staff had not done an analysis to determine the validity of the proposed amendment. He felt more information was needed and questioned whether there was sufficient data at the present time for the Planning Commission and City Council to make the necessary decision regarding the proposed amendment. He felt that the proposed definition was discriminatory in that it only applied to undeveloped acreage within the City and pointed out that developed areas were controlled by zoning . whereas the undeveloped areas where either un- classified or were zoned P -C which would give the Planning Commission and the City Council ample control over any development proposed, thereby judging each on its own merit taking into consid- eration the objectives of traffic, density, buildable acreage, etc. He felt that if the entire amendment was for the purpose of clarifi- cation, it would be better to use the staff's suggestion of assigning a specific number of maximum dwelling units to developed and undevelop- ed parcels which would solve some problems of the City and developers, however, could not see the need for the definition of "buildable acreage." In conclusion, he requested that the proposed amendment not be approved and that the existing General Plan be retained. Valerie Murley, representing the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the proposed amendment and felt that the changes would more adequately describe what the City in fact has. As far as the definition of the "buildable acreage" is concerned, she felt that if the land had such a slope as to prevent • some building, the area should be left open and not added to the buildable portion. Page 3. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALL m August 7, 1975 MINUTES Stuart Woodard, Architect, Corona del Mar, appeare before the Commission and commented on the meaning of density. He stated that the City has already adopted a General Plan which controls the popula- tion as to maximums and minimums through various lifestyles throughout the community, that the areas under consideration are valid areas for density higher than single family housing and if the community is going to prosper with a variety of lifestyles then the City should allow the variety. He felt that if it was not the intent of the City to reduce the density, why go through all the manipulations of the proposed amendment. He also felt that the best solution or compromise would be to state the exact number of units which would be allowed on the various sites under con- sideration in order that each development could be judged on it's own merits. He did not feel that rewording the General Plan would accomplish anything. Paul Ryckoff appeared before the Commission in rebuttal and stated there was no intent to change • the density on any of the sites, but was merely to reassign the nomenclature without changing what could be done. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Williams felt that the existing categories as shown on the map were somewhat confusing and should be changed in order to give more meaning. Commissioner Parker agreed that a clarification of words may be needed, however, did not feel the addition of this new concept would clarify the issue and, therefore, was opposed to the change. Planning Commission questioned whether there were any definition standards proposed for use through- out the County and Community Development Director Hogan advised of the proposed standards in con- nection with zoning, however, they do not deal with classifications of density. He pointed out the difficulty in comparing densities of cities in different locations because of the various . lifestyles. Commissioner Seely suggested that the four issues of this proposed amendment be considered separately. Page 4. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T A RN CALL Au ust 7 1975 MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Parker felt that taking separate action on the various points would only further disrupt the continuity of the General Plan, not only in what we now have, but also in the proposed amendment. He felt that new definitions and categories should not be adopted on a piece -meal basis. Motion X Motion was made that General Plan Amendment No. 26 be rejected. Commissioner Agee felt that the intent of the amendment was to define density in terms of the City of Newport Beach and voiced his support of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Williams felt it was unlikely that all cities would agree to one standard of density but there was no reason why Newport Beach could not change their definitions as long as the action was understood. Commissioner Parker again voiced his concerns with • changing definitions on a piece -meal basis and adding new concepts to the existing General Plan without a complete review of all the definitions. At the request of the Planning Commission, Assist- ant City Attorney Coffin commented on the pro- ceedings relative to motions and substitute motions. Motion y Substitute motion was made that each element be Ayes X Y considered individually. Motion failed. Noes The original motion to reject General Plan Amend- ment No. 26 was opened for discussion and Commis- sioner Seely voiced his opposition as he felt that creating Low - Density designation of 0 to 4 and Medium- Density designation of from 4 to 10 was in order as well as the definition of "build- able acreage" and felt the amendment should be approved. Although he recognized the desire for "medium" and "low" definitions, Commissioner Beckley voiced his concern with making any changes to the Residential Growth Element because of the factual input receiv d • from the various utilities when the General Plan was adopted which in effect said they had the capabilities and could supply planned and present needs with the existing systems. Ayes X X X Motion was then voted on and failed. Noes X X X X Page 5. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T X T a F Auqust 7, 1975 MINUTES My & .. && r - mvcn Motion X Motion was then made to adopt Resolution No. 927 recommending the amendment to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Parker commented on the language proposed for the Residential Growth Element and agreed that the present statement was probably inaccurate, although it was based on information available at the time it was adopted, however, the proposed statement consisting of three or four paragraphs was not necessarily the policies of the City and felt they contained statements which were not universally accepted and drew conclusions which would lock the City to policies which were Motion X indefensible. The motion was, therefore, amended to delete approval of the suggested changes to the Residential Growth Element in order that they could be considered separately. At this point, staff and Planning Commission dis- cussed the motion as amended for purposes of clarification. /rs X X X X The amendment to the motion was then voted on and s X X. X carried. Ayes X X X The original motion as amended was voted on and Noes X X X X failed. Chairman Beckley advised that he had voted in error on Commissioner Parker's original motion to deny the amendment and requested that a new vote be taken. Assistant City Attorney Coffin explained that since the motion to adopt Resolution No. 927 failed, the Planning Commission had in fact taken action to deny the proposed amendment with the exception of the proposed language changes to the Residential Growth Element which was deleted from the motion in order that same could be considered separately. Motion X Motion was then made to deny the proposed changes Ayes X X X X to the Residential Growth Element. Noes X X X Commissioner Williams requested that the Planning Commission review the density designations now • employed in the Residential Growth Element in an attempt to provide more meaningful designations than are now given at their next General Plan amendment hearings. Page 6. 0 n U COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH yG1 A 9 T D m �t T m F MINUTES Z P p On �^ August 7 1975 INDEX Item #2 Report from the Department of Community Develop- GENERAL ment regarding the determination of the Environ- PLAN mental Affairs Committee with respect to the motim T—M—ENDMENT of Commissioner Parker. N0. 25 In answer to Planning Commission's question on the SET FOR cost of preparing an Environmental Impact Report, PUBLIC Community Development Director Hogan advised it HEARING would probably be between 10 and 15 thousand dollars, depending on the scope of work involved. For the benefit of those present, Mr. Hogan review ed the staff report regarding the previous action of the Planning Commission and the recommendation of the Environmental Affairs Committee pertaining to the EIR as a result of the action. In addition to the recommendation of the written staff report, Mr. Hogan also advised of alternative actions which could be taken as follows: 1. Determine that no amendment to the General Plan was warranted at this particular time. 2. Determine that an EIR should be developed to examine the technical, logical, and economic feasibility as suggested in the amendment for the relocating of Coast Highway to the 5th Avenue corridor and make that recommendation to the City Council because it would require some funding in order to accomplish the examination. 3. Reword the proposed amendment to indicate that such an alternative should be considered at some time in the future, (this was done in other portions of the General Plan, i.e., the one -way couplet at MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue) in which case a negative declaration would be appropriate. 4. That a traffic analysis be made based on proposals in the down -coast areas which may not at the present time indicate a change in the General Plan was warranted but may indicate the need for an updating of the traffic study which was previously made. This would also take some additional funding. Planning Commission discussed the four alternative which were suggested and Commissioner Parker advised that in making his motion at the previous meeting, his personal views got tangled up in the Page 7. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RO CALL r 9 Motion All Ayes 0 MINUTES Auauct 7. 1075 INDEX motion as it was not his intent to incur the expense of requiring an EIR; the intent was to open up the General Plan in order that 5th Avenue would not be precluded as an alternative. Planning Commission discussed the actions which could be taken and their usual practice in allow- ing persons to be heard relative to matters under consideration. Assistant City Attorney Coffin advised that since the public hearing had been closed at the previous meeting and the matter was now under discussion only, it would be necessary to re- notice the amendment for public hearing if it was the Commission's desire to open the matter to the public and take further testimony. Commissioner Agee pointed out that the previous action of the Commission was a matter of record and cautioned the Commission against any rewording of the motion at this time. He also brought up the fact that a further public hearing had been promised since the public felt that although a legal notice had been given, proper notice to the public had not been given. Although some of the Commissioners felt legal action could be taken on this matter, in order to X preclude any further criticism, motion was made to set General Plan Amendment No. 24 for public hearing on September 4, 1975, said.notice to include the fact that 5th Avenue would be consid- ered as an alternative. Item #3 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach AMENDMENT Municipal Code by adding Section 20.08.290, which NO. 447 would require site plan review for new development within areas designated for a Specific Area Plan CONT. TO by the General Plan for which a Specific Area Plan has not been adopted. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan advised the Commission of revisions which should be made to the appeal section in order to make it consistent with the City's general appeal procedures. As background information, Mr. Hogan reported on the previous concerns of the Planning Commission which resulted in the proposed ordinance and in changing the procedure from that of requiring a use permit to that of providing for a site plan review. Page 8. COMMISSIONERS Cmy ,S„ °y mi n m A r A DArAI1 T A 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6unuc+ 7 1076 MINUTES Planning Commission pointed out other incompre -. hensive portions of the proposed ordinance and were advised by the staff that these were typo- graphical errors and would be corrected. The changes and corrections were discussed by the Planning Commission and Staff. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Bill Frost appeared before the Commission and requested clarification as to what areas would be affected by the proposed ordinance. Community Development Director Hogan reviewed the map indicating the areas which have been designate for a Specific Area Plan by the General Plan. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 447: • Assistant City Attorney Coffin requested a point of clarification relative to the review of signs and the Commission felt they should be included in the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Beckley reported on the design review process as discussed at the League of California Cities conference and felt that the ordinance should only cover review of the site plan and that design, such as color, .texture, etc. should be left to the discretion of the architect, therefore he could not support the amendment as proposed. Planning Commission discussed the issue further and concurred that the site plan review rather than design review was in order. In view of the fact that many substantial corrections and changes Motion X to the ordinance needed to be made, substitute All Ayes motion was made to reopen the public hearing and continue the matter to August 21, 1975 for the purpose of revising the proposed ordinance as discussed. Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened at 9:50 P.M. Page 9. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T P R69 CAL L " 0 0 MINUTES 6unueF 7 1076 INDEX Item #4 Request to create three parcels of land for RESUB- residential development and an easement for street DIVISION purposes to be dedicated to the City of Newport NO. 495 Beach where four lots, a portion of Nordina Street (vacated) and a portion of a vacated alley now CONT. TO exist. -A-UT.—TT- Location: Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 11, of the Seashore Colony Tract, Lot 1, Block G of the El Morro Tract, a portion of Nordina Street (vacated), and a portion of a vacated alley, located at 209 Highland Street, on the westerly side of Highland Street, northeasterly of West Coast Highway in Newport Shores. Zone: Specific Area Plan No. 4 Applicant: Dana Smith, Newport Beach Owner: Texaco, Inc., Newport Beach. Engineer: Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates, Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan advised that subsequent to the writing of the staff report, a new proposal was submitted by the applicant, however, the various City Departments.have not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the revised plan and requested that the matter be continued. In the meantime, it was the desire of the staff and applicant to present the revised plan to the Commission for their review in order that any comments or questions could be covered in the revised staff report. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Bill Frost of Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates, appeared before the Commission and reviewed a colored aerial photograph of the area as well as the revised plot plan of the proposed development. He pointed out the location of the fire hydrants, reviewed the proposed parking, answered questions of the Commission relative to the project, and concurred with the request for a continuance. Page 10. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m� N➢ A � r .c Z p p U A u a u s t 7. 1975 A on All Ayes 0 MINUTES Community Development Director Hogan commented on the possible request for a variance to reduce the parking requirement on one of the lots because of the reduced size of the lot and units. He also advised of the increased amount of total on -site parking proposed, i.e., 2.5 per unit plus 3, where only 2 per unit were required. Dana Smith, applicant, appeared before the Commis- sion and answered questions relative to the smalle lot. Mr. Turbow,property owner on the opposite side of Highland, appeared before the Commission and questioned why an opening could not be made on Coast Highway as he felt the development would considerably increase the traffic on Highland Avenue. Community Development Director Hogan advised that the number of access points on Coast Highway was limited in order to prevent interruption in the traffic flow on the highway itself. X Motion was made to continue the public hearing to August 21, 1975. Commissioner Heather disqualified herself in connection with Item No. 5 as she is a member of Tiffany's and, therefore, stepped down from the dais and was deemed absent. Item 1#5 Request to permit live entertainment in conjunc- USE tion with a private club on the third floor of the PERMIT five story Koll Building in Lido Village. 1� Location: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 60 -43 APPROVED (Resubdivision No. 433) located at C NZ5 EI-- 3390 Via Lido, on the northeasterly TIONALLY side of Via Lido, southeasterly of Via Oporto, in Lido Village. Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Tiffany's Astrological Club, Inc. of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Page 11. COMMISSIONERS t m p P u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Auauct 7. 1.875 MINUTES Owner: Don Koll Co., Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan advised that the existing off -site parking agreement covered an adequate amount of parking to allow for this development, however, the agreement would probably have to be amended if another restaurant were located within the same building. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Ed Martinez, President of Tiffany's, the applicant appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommendations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X X X Y following findings: Absent X 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the • Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. That the introduction of live entertainment on a daily basis in the subject private club will not be detrimental to any surrounding uses so long as the proposed use is confined to the interior of the building and no sound ampli- fication is used which can be heard outside of the structure. 3. Adequate parking will be provided for the proposed development. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1758 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, moral 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 genera welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1758, subject to the following conditions: • 1. That the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the facility.. 2. That there shall be no sound amplification used outside of the building. Page 12. 0 • COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH D�,n➢ M y m �L < Z A P V+ T A u a u s t 7. 1975 MINUTES ,u new m vcn 3. That the existing off -site parking agreement shall be amended as required after determina- tion is made for the total need of the combin- ed requirements for Tiffany's and the Elegant Noodle Restaurant. Commissioner Heather returned to the dais. Commissioner Hazewinkel disqualified himself in connection with Items No. 6 and No. 7 because of dealings with the property owner and, therefore, stepped down from the dais and was deemed absent. Item #6 Request to permit the use of an existing building USE in the P -C District for a bank facility on a PERMIT temporary basis. The proposed development also 1759 includes the use of an existing drive -in teller unit on adjacent property. APPROVED CONDI- Location: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's TIONALLY Subdivision located at 2200 East Coast Highway,.on the northerly . side of East Coast Highway between Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Center. Zone: P -C Applicant: Bank of Newport, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Co., Newport Beach As a matter of information, Community Development Director Hogan advised the Commission of the Coastal Commission's staff recommendation for denial of the Bank of Newport development located on 32nd Street. He did not know the effect of that application on this particular request, however, our staff recommended this request be approved. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Page 13. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m >2 m y MINUTES A P N August 7, 1975 Paul Ruffing, 610 Newport Center Drive, Architect for the Bank of Newport, appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter and requested approval in order that the project may proceed provided the applicant was successful in persuading the Coastal Commission to approve the request for a bank on 32nd Street. He concurred with the staff report and recommendations. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1759 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 genera welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1759, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans. 2. That all signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Convenien signs such as "entrance" or "exit" shall have • a maximum area of 6 sq. ft. Said convenience signs shall not include the name or logo of the bank use. Page 14. Planning Commission discussed the removal of the foundation and restoration of the property followi relocation of the building on the adjoining site. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X X X Y following findings: Absent X I. The proposed development does not conflict with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 2. Adequate off - street parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development. 3. Adequate provisions for traffic circulation are being made for the drive -in teller facility on the adjoining property. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1759 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 genera welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1759, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans. 2. That all signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Convenien signs such as "entrance" or "exit" shall have • a maximum area of 6 sq. ft. Said convenience signs shall not include the name or logo of the bank use. Page 14. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C T y M y m M A Rik CALL 11 0 MINUTES August 7. 1975 raven 3. That the relocatable building located to the east of the proposed bank facility shall be removed from the site and the foundation shall be removed and the ground restored to its original condition. 4. That all mechanical equipment.and trash areas shall be screened from East Coast Highway. 5. That this approval shall be for a two year period; any request for an extension shall be acted upon by the Modifications Committee. 6. That all applicable conditions of approval of . Resubdivision No. 496 shall be completed. Item #7 Request to create one parcel of land for commer- RESUB- cial development. DIVISION N Location: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision located at 2200 East APPROVED Coast Highway, on the northerly C NU DI- side of East Coast Highway between T O�LLY Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Center. Zone: P -C Applicant: Bank of Newport, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Co., Newport Beach Engineer: C. S. T. Engineering, Newport Beach. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Paul Ruffing, Architect, 610 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant and concurred with the staff report and recommended conditions. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Heather questioned who would be responsible for complying with recommended con- ditions No. 2 and No. 3 and was advised that the owner and subdivider were the same, i.e., The Irvine Company, and would be the party responsible for complying with these two conditions. Page 15. COMMISSIONERS f- � 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Auaust 7. 1975 MINUTES i IDYL^ Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that the Ayes X X X X X X Planning Commission make the following findings: Absent X 1. 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 are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substan- tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • 6. That the design of the subdivision or the pro- posed 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 requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 496 subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That an irrevocable offer of dedication be made for the right -of -way for the future exten sion of Avocado Avenue northeasterly of East Coast Highway. The offer shall include the 28 ft. wide strip between this resubdivision and Resubdivision No. 404 (P.M. 58/29). 3. That an agreement be furnished providing for completion of the subdivider's share of the Page 16. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH yG1 '�'� 1 Z A p N R� CALL • MINUTES Auqust 7. 1975 " INDEX Avocado Avenue improvements at such time that it is determined that the extension of Avocado Avenue northeasterly of East Coast Highway should be constructed. Commissioner Hazewinkel returned to the dais. Items No. 8 and No. 9 were heard concurrently because of their relationship, however, separate action was taken on each. Item #8 Request to permit the construction of a restaurant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live USE PERMIT entertainment where portions of the proposed T_7Tff_ structure exceed the basic height limit within the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District, and the APPROVED acceptance of an environmental document. The CONDI- proposal also includes a modification from the required parking standards so as to allow compact parking spaces and a request for an offsite park- TPURTULY ing agreement for a portion of the required park- ing spaces. Location: Portion of Lot H, Tract 919, located at 2827 West Coast Highway on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, westerly of Riverside Avenue, on Mariner's Mile. Zone: C -O -Z Applicant: Ancient Mariner -Rusty Pelican, Inc. Irvine Owner: American Marine, Ltd., Newport Beach Item #9 Request to permit a portion of a proposed restau- rant facility to exceed the maximum height limit within the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. VARIANCE N0.1049 APPROVED Page 17. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n m T T At A11 { T p P N August 7, 1975 MINUTES Location: Portion of Lot H, Tract 919, located at 2827 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, westerly of Riverside Avenue, on Mariner's Mile. Zone: C -O -Z Applicant: Ancient Mariner -Rusty Pelican, Inc. Irvine Owner: American Marine, Ltd., Newport Beach In connection with the request to exceed the height limit as requested by the variance, Community Development Director Hogan advised that the staff could find no justification for the excessive height as required by the Municipal. Code and therefore recommended denial. • Planning Commission questioned and discussed the access points to the proposed restaurant, number of trips per day which would be generated by the restaurant, compact car spaces, valet parking, and formula used to compute the required parking. Public hearings were opened in connection with these two requests. Pete Siracusa, President of Ancient Mariner -Rusty Pelican, Inc., appeared before the Commission and presented a model of the restaurant which he thoroughly reviewed. He also gave a slide pre- sentation on the proposed restaurant. He stated that the restaurant was designed in the fashion of an old Victorian house and reviewed both the exterior'and interior plans. He advised that the variance was necessary to allow one of the towers containing a pole on top to exceed the maximum height limit about 4 feet on approximately 3% of the total roof space and if the variance were denied, this architectural feature.of the Victoria style would be destroyed. He answered questions of the Commission relative to the type of con- struction, pilings, building to be removed, . • circulation through the parking lot, and stated that the only signing for the restaurant would be a small brass plate on the door with the inscrip- tion "Rebecca's Sporting House and Saloon - Ladies Welcome." Page 18. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH al rAlI F F N August 7, 1975 MINUTES - — -- INUex Community Development Director Hogan advised of staff's recommendation to add "that cross - easements shall be filed between the properties to allow free access to parking" to Condition No. 15 in order to assure that free access and circulation would be maintained in the parking lot. Planning Commission discussed the use of the parking lot by others in the area. As to the request for a variance, Commissioner Parker stated he felt that the proposed structure was an exceptional and extraordinary building and met the physical requirements for a variance because of the design and could not see how it would adversely affect the health or safety of persons in the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public welfare. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. ion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes following findings in connection with the project as a whole as well as that of compliance with the criteria for the granting of a use permit for a structure in excess of the basic height limit: 1. The proposed development will result in more public open space since a thirty -five foot wide "view corridor" is being provided along the easterly side property line from West Coast Highway to Newport Bay. In addition to the proposed "view corridor," the plot plan also indicates a four foot - eight foot wide public, wooden boardwalk along the bayfront. 2. The proposed steep Victorian roof construction will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 3. The increased building height of the proposed development will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the struc- ture and the existing two -story buildings on . adjacent property along Newport Bay. 4. The structure will have much less floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. A gross floor area of 6,447 sq. ft. ± Page 19. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n rn .1 T ( . <� m p ; reu M m N Auoust 7. 1975 MINUTES is proposed with the new construction, where the Ordinance permits approximately 85,000 sq. ft. of floor area, based upon three times the buildable area of the 28,326 sq. ft. lot as permitted in the C -0 District. that Planning Commission make the following find- ings in connection with the applicant's request for the use permit: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off - street parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development. 3. Adequate provisions for traffic circulation are being made in the common parking lot. 4. The required off - street parking spaces for Rebecca's Restaurant on separate lots from the building site are justifiable for the • following reasons: (a) The customer parking lot is directly east of the property in question. (b) The employee parking lot is under a long- term lease with the applicant. (c) The proposed development will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 5. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems with the pro- posed development. 6. The proposed background music in the-second- floor cocktail lounge will not be detrimental to any surrounding land uses so long as the music is confined to the interior of the restaurant. 7. That the modification in the size of the park- ing spaces and the use of compact spaces will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injuri- ous to property and improvements in the Page 20. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m D T 3 o *rAlI M p p Auqust 7. 1975 MINUTES - mvcn neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifica- tion is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 8. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in the district. 9. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in the district. 10. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and exist- ing developments or public spaces. 11. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use • permit. 12. The approval of Use Permit No. 1760 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 13. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. that the Negative Declaration be accepted and that Use Permit No. 1760 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations, except as noted in Condition No. 2. 2. That the ridge line of all of the roofs on the proposed structure shall not exceed a height of forty feet above grade. 3. That a minimum of one parking space /40 sq. ft. of net public area shall be provided on site or on the adjacent off -site parking area Page 21. COMMISSIONERS m M 4 = T t D Onli All < V" A A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Auaust 7. 1975 MINUTES during daytime hours for the restaurant use, and that a minimum of one parking space /35 sq. ft. of "net public area" (i.e., 101 parking spaces for the proposed development) shall be provided during the evening hours on site or in approved off -site locations when live entertainment occurs in the restaurant. An off -site parking agreement shall be required, providing the additional required parking spaces. 4. That the boat slips and side -tie berthing spaces bayward of the restaurant site shall be maintained as guest docks or as a boat sale area. However, should the subject boat slips convert to a commercial marina at a later date, 0.75 parking spaces shall be provided for each slip and /or each twenty -five feet of side -tie berthing space on the subject property or in an approved off -site parking area. • 5. That the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the facility. 6. That there shall be no sound amplification used outside of the structure. 7. That the wooden boardwalk adjacent to the restaurant facility shall remain open and accessible to the public at all times. 8. All Exterior lighting shall be approved by the Department of Community Development.. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent properties as well as from West Coast Highway and from Newport Bay. 10. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 50 of the Air Pollution Control District. In addition, the kitchen hood system shall have an automatic fire protection system installed. . 11. That a washout area for trash containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or the storm drains. Page 22. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Y� T y m ➢. m �t m� Z p A N MINUTES August 7. 1975 -- - - INDEX 12. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. Said landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan and the landscaping shall be permanently maintained. 13. That all signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Conven- ience signs such as "entrance" or "exit" shall have a maximum area of six square feet. Said convenience signs and the proposed flag poles shall not include the name or logo of the restaurant use. 14. That the applicant shall adhere to those conditions of approval placed on Harbor Permit #129 -2827, as approved by the City Council on June 23, 1975. 15. That the interior circulation system shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer before issuance of permits and that cross - easements • shall be filed between the properties to allow free access to parking. 16. That the drive approach widths shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 17. That a fifteen foot wide easement along the easterly side of the parcel be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach for storm drain purposes. 18. That all work within the West. Coast Highway right -of -way be in accordance with an approve encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 19. That the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit from the Department of Community Development prior to the commencement of demolition of any structure on the subject property. Plans, including proposals for the control of debris and protection of the adjoining channel, shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of demolition permits. 20. that the developer shall be instructed to submit to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board the specific water Page 23. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH w n p m 4 < Z A p N rAll m Auauct 7_ 1975 MINUTES quality control plan they intend to follow to insure that there will be no pollution of the Bay during demolition, grading and construction. 21. That the parking lot shall be graded in such a manner so as to drain into the City's storm drain system. Chairman Beckley voiced concern with the policies relative to compact car spaces. Motion X Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1049 Ayes X X X X X based on the findings that there are exceptional Noes X or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property in that the property is one of particular environmental significance because it is located in an area which has been designated to encourage public access and view corridors to the bay and is an extremely expensive piece of property. One of the functions of a variance is to encourage architectural and site plan treatment to a given property that will result in the maximum attain- ment of the things which the City is trying to , encourage, i.e. public access and view corridors to the bay, all of which are in line with the General Plan. The applicant has provided this extremely well and to a great degree on his own initiative. As to the reason why the variance is necessary to preserve the property rights of the applicant, the applicant has attempted to accommodate the City and public by making the space available and accessible to the bay and in order to do so on an economically feasible basis, has provided a modest floor plan which is far less than the allow- able buildable area and has gone to an architec- tural style which will compliment the area and is within the criteria of the proposed Specific Area Plan. Also, the value of the property warrants the granting of this extremely minor variance which will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improve- ments in the neighborhood. Page 24. COMMISSIONERS' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m L y. s . 1 £ T P Rik CALL rP E Motion All Ayes • MINUTES August 7. 1975 Request to permit the use of an existing building Item #10 USE and patio area for a "take -out" restaurant facil- PERMIT ity in Albertson's Shopping Center. 1761 Location: Lots 8 and 10, Block 436, Corona APPROVED del Mar, located at 420 Iris C N— D1— Avenue on the southeasterly side TIONALLY of Iris Avenue between East Coast Highway and First Avenue in Corona del Mar. Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Richard A. Palaferri dba Fat Richies Deli, Corona del Mar Owner: E. Morris Smith, Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Richard Palaferri appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommend- ations. Tom Moe, long time resident of Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission in favor of the request and felt it should be approved because this is a unique project which adds to the community. Dan Granite appeared before the Commission in favor of the request because it makes for happy people and is an enjoyable feature in the community. Richard Palaferri appeared before the Commission and answered questions relative to signing and disposal of trash. 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 development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Page 25. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES CALL August 7 1975 INDEX 2. Adequate off - street parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development since the "take -out" restaurant will substantially cater to people who are already shopping in the commercial center or who walk or ride bicycles to the site. 3. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the proposed use is replacing a similar use which formerly existed on the site. 5. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to parking, circulation, walls and landscaping, will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structures ,have been in existence for many years. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1761 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. 1761, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans and floor plan. 2. That there shall be no sale of beer or alco- holic beverages. 3. That the restaurant facility shall not be open for business prior to 7:00 A.M. or after 8:00 P.M. 4. That all new exterior lighting and signs shall conform to Chapter 20.53 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Iris Avenue as well as • from the Albertson's parking lot. 6. That a maximum of five tables with twenty seats shall be permitted in the patio area. Page 26. COMMISSIONERS cm; MT4 CALL *ion All Ayes Motion All Ayes ion Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Dunne+ 7 107G 7. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 50 of the Air Pollution Control District. In addition, the kitchen hood system shall have an automatic fire protection system installed. .8. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee 9. That the development standards related to parking, circulation, walls and landscaping are waived. Item #11 Request to consider an amendment to the Planned Community District regulations for "North Ford" AMENDMENT NO. 449 as it pertains to permit procedures and offstreet parking standards for restaurants. CONT. TO TUG. 21 Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of August 21, 1975. Item #12 Request to consider an amendment to the Planned. Community District regulations for "Newport Place" AMENDMENT X50 as it pertains to permit procedures and offstreet parking standards for restaurants. CONT. TO ALIC. 21 Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of August 21, 1975. Item #13 Request to consider an amendment to the Planned Community District regulations for "Koll Center AMENDMENT N0. 451 Newport" as it pertains to permit procedures and offstreet parking standards for restaurants. CONT. TO A Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of August 21, 1975. Page 27. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DC T > S ro m T D T A � T U Motion All Ayes Motion All Aye MINUTES Auaust 7. 1975 INDEX Ayes to adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on August 13, 1975 at 7:00 P.M. in the Annex Confer- ence Room, for the purpose of discussing the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan. Time of Adjournment: 11:35 P.M. ?JAMES RKER, Secretary ning Commission of Newport Beach Page 28. r Item #14 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of A AMENDMENT the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to amend W W. 452 the offstreet parking standards for retail and wholesale stores and office buildings in the R REMOVED " -Z" District to make them consistent with the F FRFM parking requirements in the " -H" District. G G -NA Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan advised that notice had not been given to the property owners which would be affected by this amendment, althoug the notice had been published in the newspaper as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. He .pointed out that all the areas in question were within districts designated for a Specific Area Plan and if the Commission approves the revisions to the proposed amendment requiring site plan review (Amendment No. 447), this particular matter would be covered. Staff, therefore, suggests that this matter.be withdrawn at this time or continued in order that public notice may be given to the individual property owners affected by the change in parking requirements. X M Motion was made to withdraw Amendment No. 452 from the Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Seely advised he would be absent from the August 21, 1975, Planning Commission meeting. X T There being no further business, motion was made