Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/1991COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Council .Chambers \PLACE: TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * Chairman Di Sano was absent. (Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at Absent * 7:35 p.m.) x x EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney a x x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x : x in s. of JuIv 18 1991: minutes of 4 -38 -91 cting Chairman Edwards referred to amended page 52 of the ubject Minutes that was distributed to the Planning Commission rior to the public hearing addressing the Commission's onsideration of two joint City Council /Planning Commission eetings. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended July 18, Ayes * * * * 1991, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent x x a Public Comments: Public Comments 0 one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak. on on- agenda items. x x x • COMMISSIONERS \0 o �0 • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES .ROLL CALL INQEX Posting of the A gnda: Posting of the William Laycock Current Planning Manager, stated that the Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 2, 1991, in front of City Hall. e nest for Continuances: Request for William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the continuance applicant has requested that Item No. 4, Exception Permit No. 41, " John Howenstine, Inc., property located at 2241 West Coast Highway, regarding the replacement of an existing freestanding entry sign for Cano's Restaurant, be removed from calendar. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to remove Item No. 4, Exception -. Ayes * * * * Permit No. 41, from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. sent esubdivision No. 964 (Public Hearin Item Nb.l equest to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land 9954 or commercial purposes on property located in the "Retail and ervice Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden cont a to quare Specific Plan Area. s /22 /9I CATION: Lots 17 and 18, Tract No. 814, located at 2116 Newport Boulevard, on the southeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard and 22nd Street in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ONE: SP -6 PLICANT: Crab Cooker of Newport, Inc., Newport Beach WNER: Robert Roobian, Newport Beach • NGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Laguna Hills -2- COMMISSIONERS .e o • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. James Wasko, 10203 Overhill. Drive, Tustin, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Wasko stated that the legal owner of the property is Robert Roobian. Mr. Wasko addressed Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A ", regarding the relocation of the existing gas meter from the westerly side of the building to the northerly side of the building. Mr. Wasko stated that the gas meter is currently located on the northerly side of the building, and the condition should state that the gas meter be relocated to the easterly side of the building. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the Public Works Department has requested that the gas meter be relocated from 22nd Street to the ear of the building. Mr. Wasko stated one parking space would be lost if the gas meter would be relocated to the rear of the building, and he addressed the costs that would be incurred to ove the gas meter. Mr. Webb explained that the gas meter • rrently is located in the sidewalk area, and it is feasible that omeone could trip over the meter. Mr. Wasko stated that the gas eter that currently exists on the north side of the building is the paghetti Factory's gas meter and encroaches approximately 24/2 eet. Mr. Wasko explained that one parking space would be lost at he rear of the building inasmuch as the gas meter extends 12 to 14 ches and it would be difficult for an individual to get in and out f an automobile. iscussion ensued between the Planning Commission and Mr. Webb regarding the location and size of the existing gas meter. r. Webb explained that gas meters are typically located on private roperty and not in a public right -of -way wherein he pointed out hat the subject meter was installed at the current location in 1926. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Wasko explained that the cost of $300.00 to $400.00 to relocate the as meter was an estimated cost. cting Chairman Edwards suggested that Condition No. 3 be mended to state "if the existing gas meter were located in the . ublic right -of -way said meter would need to be relocated ", and Mr. Webb agreed with the amended condition. Mr. Wasko requested hat the amended condition be clarified to indicate the minimal -3- COMMISSIONERS August 8, 1991 MINUTES o� • o� o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX . size that would be permissible to encroach in the public right-of- way. Commissioner Gross and Commissioner Merrill suggested that the esubdivision be continued to allow additional time for staff to measure the distance that the gas meter encroaches on the public right-of-way, and to provide the cost that would be incurred to relocate the gas meter. Mr. Wasko addressed Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A ", requesting that he overhead utilities be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate ole. He explained that the motivation to renovate the property is State mandated seismic mic upgrade that the City is enforcing to arthguake proof the building, and the renovation will cost pproximately $120,000.00. He said that the structural improvements to the proposed project would help beautify cFadden Square, and the building would retain its historical basic orm. He estimated that an additional front door and constructing • wall to create two retail areas, would cost between $5,000.00 to 15,000.00, wherein he concluded that the money the applicant is pending for structural improvements is creating a financial ardship. He estimated that it will cost $8,000.00 to underground ree wires from the Crab Cooker Restaurant to the "subject roperty. He requested that Condition No. 4 be deleted from ibit "A ". r. Wasko, the Planning Commission, and Mr. Webb addressed dergrounding utility wires throughout the City, and the cost to derground the subject three wires. Commissioner Pomeroy inted out that the three service wires extend from a pole to the rner of the subject building, and the wires have nothing to do th the main service lines that are in the public right -of -way. He. .d that the majority of the undergrounding of utilities has been ,marily for cosmetic purposes throughout the City's streets, and ien the pole goes underground it will be necessary to derground the service. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Webb cussed the party responsible to finance the undergrounding ierein Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that the estimated cost underground three wires is a high price to pay for such a small, significant item that will eventually happen in the area. Mr. asko stated that the Edison Company estimated the cost to derground the three wires would be from $8,000.00 to $9,000.00. 0 COMMISSIONERS o o� • \0\�,-\N \\ August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, addressed Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code wherein it is stated "that utility lines shall be required to be placed underground, the subdivider shall make the necessary arrangements with the Utilities Companies for installation... The City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission may waive the requirements of. this Section if the topographical soil or other conditions make such underground installations unreasonable or impractical." Ms. Flory indicated that financial hardship is not addressed in the Code, and it appears that financial hardship is not one of the options to waive the undergrounding requirement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Laycock explained that it is the renovation of the building that costs over $5,000.00, not the seismic requirements, that requires the subdivision. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. • Wasko explained that the subject building is currently used as warehouse space for the Crab Cooker Restaurant. He explained that the proposed use for the building is commercial /retail. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy questioned the number of years that a subdivision has been required for alterations in excess of $5,000.00 to existing structures that cross existing property lines:. Mr. Laycock replied that the Ordinance has been in effect since 1975 or 1977. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the $5,000.00 would be 15,000.00 to $17,000.00 in today's dollars. Commissioner Pomeroy and Acting Chairman Edwards suggested an amendment to the Ordinance to increase the dollar figure for alterations to existing structures before a subdivision is required. Motion * Motion was made to continue Resubdivision No. 964 to the August Ayes * * * * * * 2,1991, Planning Commission meeting. Acting Chairman Edwards Absent * suggested that the location of the gas meter and the loss of one parking space be addressed. Commissioner Debay suggested that consideration of a waiver regarding the undergrounding of the • three wires also be addressed. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -5- COMMISSIONERS 01 q� • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 966 (Public Hearinel Item. No.2 Request to resubdivide two existing lots into two parcels of land for R966 two - family residential condominium development on property Cont ' d to located in the R -2 District. 8/22/91 LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4, Tract No. 27, located at 3301 and 3305 Clay Street, on the northwesterly corner of Clay Street and Bolsa Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -2 PLICANT: Vance Collins, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant . NGINEER/ SURVEYOR: RdM Surveying, Inc., Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and r. Vance Collins, 3216 Clay Street, applicant, appeared before the tanning Commission. In response to a question posed by Acting hairman Edwards, Mr. Collins concurred with the findings and onditions in Exhibit "A' with the exception of Condition No. 7, egarding the reconstruction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk (seven d one half feet wide) along the Bolsa Avenue and Clay Street rontages of the site. He explained that an "alley" will be onstructed at the rear of the property so as to provide access to he garages, and he requested that a five foot wide sidewalk be onsidered. He explained that at 3214 and 3216 Clay Street, an lley was constructed and a five foot wide sidewalk was installed; it 3239 and 3245 Clay Street, garages and driveways were onstructed at the front of the property and a seven foot wide was installed; and projects on Broad Street were recently nstructed with five foot wide sidewalks. In response to a question odewalk sed by Acting Chairman Edwards, Mr. Collins and Mr. Webb scribed the adjoining properties that provide five foot and seven I ot wide sidewalks. Mr. Webb explained that a five foot wide dewalk at the property line would provide a two foot wide rkway area, and if trees are planted in said area, there is the -6- COMMISSIONERS August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL J INDEX possibility that the tree roots would cause the sidewalk to raise. He explained that a five foot wide sidewalk could be constructed at the property line if no trees would be planted in the two foot wide parkway. Mr. Collins explained that the existing fence will be removed, and if a five foot wide sidewalk would be constructed at the curb, the two foot wide parkway area adjacent to the property line would be planted with grass and shrubs. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb explained that his objection of a five foot wide sidewalk at the back of curb would be that it is probable that walls will appear in the public parkway area adjacent to the subject property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb eplied that the existing fence is encroaching into the public right- f -way, and the width of the existing sidewalk is approximately • hree and one -half feet wide. Mr. Webb further replied that it was tended that the applicant provide a seven and one -half foot idewalk on Clay Street, and the Bolsa Street frontage would rovide a five foot wide sidewalk. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding sidewalk requirement, Mr. Webb explained that sidewalks are equired on Clay Street based on the City's Subdivision Code that equires subdivisions to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalks. ommissioner Glover agreed with the applicant's request for a five oot wide sidewalk, and she commented that she would prefer no idewalks inasmuch as the area has become very hard -edged with ement and buildings, and she would prefer that the area be oftened and beautified with curb and grass. She opposed seven d one -half foot wide sidewalks throughout the City. ommissioner Gross supported the applicant's request for a five oot wide sidewalk; however, he expressed concern regarding the ntenance of the two foot wide parkway. Mr. Webb explained hat the maintenance is required by the Streets and Highways Code and is the responsibility of the property owner. • -7- COMMISSIONERS ,� �' °�� August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Collins stated that a primary reason to construct the garages in the "alley" is to beautify the area, and to remove automobiles from the street. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Commissioner Pomeroy made a motion to approve Resubdivision No. 966 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", modifying Condition No. 7 to state "...reconstructed with curb, gutter, sidewalk (five feet wide) and asphalt pavement... ". For clarification, Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the five foot de sidewalk would be constructed adjacent to the curb. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb xplained that the modified condition would not set a precedent of ture subdivisions requiring a five foot wide sidewalk on Clay treet. Mr. Webb described the inconsistencies and widths of • idewalks in the adjoining area, and he stated that staff will require ,wide sidewalks in the future unless the Planning Commission dvises differently. Mr. Webb stated that the applicant will be equired to taper the sidewalk so as to be contiguous to the djoining sidewalk. In response to comments expressed by Commissioner Merrill with espect to constructing the sidewalk from the property line, Mr. Webb explained that seven and one -half feet is the normal width f a parkway in the subject area. Discussion ensued between ommissioner Merrill and Mr. Webb regarding the proposed odified condition wherein Mr. Webb explained that said condition would require the sidewalk to be constructed adjacent to the curb; owever, two and one -half feet would be available to construct a ence, etc. in the public right -of -way adjacent to the subject roperty. Commissioner Merrill stated his opposition to the roposed modified condition based on Mr. Webb's concerns egarding a five foot wide sidewalk at the curb. cting Chairman Edwards stated his opposition to the motion on he basis that the five foot wide sidewalk would interfere with onformity, the possible future maintenance costs that would be orne by the City, and the sidewalk could potentially pose as a afety hazard. He supported the seven and one -half foot wide -8- COMMISSIONERS 'lee N N .4 d August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX sidewalk, or he would support the five foot wide sidewalk if it would be constructed at the property line. Mr. Webb explained that staff would approve a four foot wide sidewalk at the property line, a three foot wide parkway, and a six inch curb. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Collins reappeared before the Planning Commission herein he described the inconsistent widths of sidewalks on adjoining properties that were recently constructed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with respect to how the neighborhood could be softened with less concrete, Mr. Webb replied if garages would be constructed in the alleys, more andscaping would be provided in the front yard setbacks. He said hat when the tract was developed, parkways were not developed imilar to other areas in Newport Heights, and inasmuch as the ea is zoned for two family units, there is less landscaping. Motion Fhe maker of the motion withdrew the motion. •ithdrawn otion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 966 subject to the Motion * indings and conditions in Exhibit "A", modifying Condition No. 7 '....reconstructed with curb, gutter, sidewalk (four feet wide adjacent o the property line) and asphalt pavement.. ". In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Edwards, Mr. ollins replied that he would prefer a sidewalk that is consistent 'th the adjoining property. ommissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Debay discussed a ontinuance for the purpose of the Planning Commission reviewing he property so as to consider softening the area with less concrete nd more landscaping. cting Chairman Edwards supported the motion on the basis that he proposed sidewalk would soften the site. ubstitute motion was made and voted on to continue Substa£ute Motion Resubdivision No. 966 for the purpose of reviewing the property. Ayes AOTION CARRIED. o sent -9- COMMISSIONERS � o.o August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Exception Permit No 39 (Amended) (Continued Discussion) It No.3 Request to amend a previously approved exception permit which EP 39A permitted the installation of various identification signs for each tenant in two of the multi- tenant buildings and three freestanding Approved monument signs in the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center, located in the C -1 -H District. The proposal includes the deletion of various identification signs for tenants, to be replaced by 2 tenant directory all signs. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map . 85 -1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located at 3417 -3475 Via Lido, on the southerly side of Via Lido, between Newport Boulevard and Via Oporto, in Via Lido Plaza. ONE: C -1 -H • PLICANT: Young Electric Sign Company, Ontario OWNER: Fritz Duda Company, Orange on Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Public Works epartment has concerns regarding the monument sign at the orner of Newport Boulevard and Finley Street. He explained that tandard 110 -L allows the sign to be closer to the sidewalk than ould be appropriate, and staff would prefer that adequate sight istance be provided for pedestrians and bicycles that may be on he sidewalk. Mr. Webb recommended that Condition No. 4, ibit "A", be modified to require the solid portion of the onument portion of the sign that is higher than 2 feet be at least feet back from the sidewalk. Mr. Webb described the area where he 9 feet would be measured from at the corner of Newport oulevard and Finley Street to the parking lot of the Via Lido laza Shopping Center. e discussion was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. en Jackson appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf A the property owner. Mr. Jackson referred to Condition No. 5 in • Exhibit "A", stating "That the previously approved under canopy igns and wall signs for tenants number 5 -9 in Building "C" shall no onger be permitted ", wherein he requested that the under. canopy -10- COMMISSIONERS p a °�n August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX signs be allowed to remain inasmuch as said signs direct pedestrian traffic inside the courtyard, and the requested sign provides direction for the parking areas. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Edwards, Mr. Jackson requested that "under canopy signs" be deleted in Condition No. 5. Mr. Jackson concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Mr. John Heemstra appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the foregoing request to modify Condition No. 5, Exhibit "A'. Mr. Heemstra addressed Condition No. 4 wherein he described from the proposed plan why staffs request to move the sign 9 feet from the corner of Newport Boulevard and Finley Street would delete one parking space in the parking lot, and how the location of the proposed sign conforms with Standard 110 -1- • Webb addressed a deficiency in Standard 110 -L in using the rolongation of the property line as the Standard relates to the ubject application. The area where the line of sight should be is here the driver's sight from the automobile is, which is six feet ehind the stop bar on the street. Mr. Webb explained that nine eet from the corner of Newport Boulevard and Finley Street would llow a driver to have the front bumper at the stop bar, and be ble to see a bicyclist 120 feet down the sidewalk. He said that the trio interpretation of Standard 110 -L allows the eye sight of the river to be on the stop bar; however, he said the driver should not e required to unlawfully cross over the stop bar before proceeding orward. Heemstra requested that the monument sign be located six feet rom the corner, and he agreed to grade the area so as to lower the ign. ommissioner Debay and Mr. Webb discussed the two parking paces in the parking lot that would be affected by the proposed ign. • ommissioner Gross, Commissioner Merrill, and Mr. Webb iscussed the responsibility of the Planning Commission to interpret -11- COMMISSIONERS V11\ August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Standard 110 -L. Mr. Webb explained that Standard 110 -L does not address a situation where the stop bar painted on the street is not along the prolongation of the property line, and the intent is to modify the Standard to state "prolongation of property line, or stop bar and traffic control device." Commissioner Glover expressed her support of the condition recommended by the Public Works Department on behalf of the school children riding bicycles to school via Newport Boulevard. In response to comments posed by the Planning Commission, Mr. Heemstra and Mr. Webb discussed the feasibility of redesigning and lowering the monument sign, and a compromise of the location of the sign. Mr. Jackson reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein • he stated that the property owner would agree to locating the Newport monument sign eight feet back from the corner of Boulevard and Finley Street. Acting Chairman Edwards explained that Condition No. 4, as it is presently written, requires the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Webb replied that he would accept a modification to Condition No. stating that the monument sign shall be located between 8 feet 0 9 feet from the corner of Newport Boulevard and Finley Street, at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. 39 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", amend Condition No. 4 stating "...that the sign structure higher than 2 feet above the curb elevation shall be a minimum of 8 feet to 9 feet behind the sidewalk, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. ", * * * *and modify Condition No. 5, deleting "under canopy signs and ". WAM.. ent * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -12- COMMISSIONERS \ 11 'k C' August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed signs will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed signs will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed tenant directory signs represent a reasonable request considering the close proximity of the subject tenant spaces. 4. That the proposed signs maintain a unified design which is compatible with the architecture of the buildings and will serve to enhance the overall appearance of the center. • 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.06.090 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. That the approval of this exception permit is necessary to protect a substantial property right and will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code (Sign Ordinance), and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to • property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. -13- COMMISSIONERS o, o • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits issued by the Building Department for the proposed signs. 3. That the proposed monument sign adjacent to Newport Boulevard shall not encroach into any required parking space for the center. 4. That the proposed monument sign along Newport Boulevard shall be built or relocated so that the sign structure higher than 2 feet above the curb elevation shall be a minimum of • 8 feet to 9 feet behind the sidewalk, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the previously approved wall signs for tenants number 5 -9 in Building "C" shall no longer be permitted. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That all applicable conditions of Exception Permit No. 39, as approved, shall remain in effect. ce tion Permit No. 41 (Continued Discussion) item No.4 EP No. 41 Request to permit the replacement of an existing freestanding entry sign for Cano's Restaurant located in the "Recreational and Marine ommercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. The Removed. roposed sign will be a second freestanding identification sign from which will also include a marquis for identifying live entertainment, Calendar d an entry sign. • -14- COMMISSIONERS d,d \()t- p q� • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: A portion of Lot H, Tract No. 919, located at 2241 West Coast Highway, on the southwesterly side of West Coast Highway, between Tustin Avenue and Dover Drive, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: John Howenstine, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: Larry Cano, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicant for Exception Permit No. 41 has requested that this item be removed from calendar. Motion Motion was made and voted on to remove Exception Permit No. es sent * * * 1 from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. Site Plan Review No. 32 Amended (Public Hearin Item No.5 equest to permit the construction of two illuminated identification spa 32A all signs to be mounted at the top of the Four Seasons Hotel facility. The previous Site Plan Review No. 32 permitted only two Approved identification logo signs at the top of the building. The Sign Code permits a maximum of 3 wall signs per building. LOCATION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 83 -715 (Resubdivision No. 752) located at 690 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • OWNER: Same as applicant -15- COMMISSIONERS 01 'lee • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A '. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. Ayes * 32 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Absent MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 2. That the proposed signs will not significantly impact any existing views nor detract from the existing skyline view. That the proposed signs are keeping with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and are not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of their surroundings and of the City. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction with the approval of Site Plan Review No. 32 and Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended). 5. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. • -16- COMMISSIONERS .o d • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved elevations, sections and details, except as noted below. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Site Plan Review No. 32 and Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 3. That the number of wall identification signs shall be limited to the two logo signs (176± square feet in area each as existing) and the two proposed wall signs shall be limited to a maximum of 200 square feet in area each, unless an amendment to Site Plan Review No. 32, or an exception to the Sign Code is approved in the future. • 4. That the identification signs shall be illuminated only by back lighting or by an external light source. 5. That this approval of Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. General Plan Amendment 90-2(E) (Public Hearin Item No.6 equest to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of GPA<No.90- he General Plan so as to redesignate properties on the northerly (E) d easterly sides of Lido Park Drive, from a mixture of Single- (81262) Family Attached and Recreational and Marine Commercial to Ingle- Family Attached; and to revise the dwelling unit allocation. 741 (R1263) AND Ap prov6d • -17- COMMISSIONERS \04 G� d. Ocn • August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 741 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Districting Map No. 8 so as to reclassify lots located northerly and easterly of Lido Park Drive on (601, 611, 617, 621, and 633 Lido Park Drive) from the C -2 District to the MFR District, and to reclassify lots located northerly and easterly of Lido Park Drive (701, 703, 705, 707 and 711 Lido Park Drive), from the P -C District to the MFR District; and to establish dwelling unit limits for each lot consistent with the General Plan and existing development. LOCATION: 601 Lido Park Drive: Lot 1, Tract No. 7695; 611 Lido Park Drive: Lots 2 & 3, Tract No. 815; 617 Lido Park Drive: Lots 4, 5 & a portion of Lot 3, Tract No. 815; 621 Lido Park Drive: Lot 1, Tract No. 7838; 633 Lido • Park Drive: Lot 1, Tract No. 8094; 701, 703, 705 and 707 Lido Park Drive, Parcel 1, Parcel Map 235- 25/26; and 711 Lido Park Drive: Portion of Section 28, Township 6 south, Range 10 west, and a portion of Section 33, Township 6 south, Range 10 west, on property located northerly and easterly of Lido Park Drive on the Lido Peninsula. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that an error was made in the staff report on page 3, 'Estimated Growth for Statistical Area 135 ", 'Lido Peninsula (total), Residential. Patricia Temple, Advance Tanning Manager, stated that the Lido Peninsula (total) ,figures hould be corrected to state: Existing: 430; General Plan Projection: 406; Projected Growth: -24. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and here being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. -18- COMMISSIONERS G' � O�dcn p r` \ August 8, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL E41 III I INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to recommend that the City Ayes Council approve General Plan Amendment 90 -2(E), (Resolution Absent No. 1262), and Zoning Amendment No. 741 (Resolution No. 1263). MOTION CARRIED. *Kx ADJOURNMENT: 9:35 p.m. Adjourn NORMA J. GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -19-