Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/1990COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: August 9, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX .Present * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. s x s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Sandra L. Genis, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of July 19 1290: Minutes of 7 -19 -90 Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the July 19, All ayes 1990, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. • August 9, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III Jill I INDEX Posting of e agenda: Posting James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning the Agenda g Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 3, 1990, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuances: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicants, Continuanc Martha and Robert Durkee, have requested that Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3386, Use Permit No. 1862 (Amended), and Variance No. 1171, requesting a combined commercial /residential development located at 500 West Balboa Boulevard, be continued to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 4 to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION . *Ayes CARRIED. Final Map of Tract No 14162 (Discussion) Item No.1 Request to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 14162 which is a FTM 14162 request to subdivide portions of four existing lots and a portion of an abandoned street into a single lot for a 6 unit residential Approved condominium development on property located in the MFR (2140) District. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a portion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR (2140) APPLICANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Beach -2- COMMISSIONERS A 0 �' � �� \CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 9, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX OWNERV Same as applicof ENGINEER: Psomas and Associates, Costa Mesa James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has been requested to submit a revision of the Final Map to correct the comer of Carnation Avenue and Seaview Avenue inasmuch as the dedication was drawn at an angle as opposed to a radius as required by a condition of Tentative Map of Tract No. 14162. He explained that the applicant shall submit the revised Final Map prior to submittal to City Council. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Final Map of Tract No. All Ayes 14162 subject to the finding and condition in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Finding: 1. That the Final Map of Tract No. 14162 conforms to the Tentative Map of said Tract and with all changes permitted and all requirements imposed as conditions to its acceptance. ondition: 1. That all conditions imposed by the City Council in conjunction with its approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14162 shall be fulfilled. Variance No. 1165 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on V1165 property located in the R -1 District which exceeds the 24 foot basic Approved height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a request to permit the new construction to exceed the height of top of curb on Ocean Boulevard to the extent that the existing garage and fence currently extend above top of curb (varies between 4 feet 6 inches ± and 8 feet 6 inches ±). The . proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to -3- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 9, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 10 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: A portion of Block A, Corona del Mar, located at 3725 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard between Poinsettia Avenue and Poppy Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Dan Hangsleben, Costa Mesa OWNERS: Kay and Virginia Smallwood, Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the addendum to the staff report wherein staff has suggested the addition of Finding No. 9 and modified Condition No. 2 in Exhibit "B" in the event the Planning Commission has a desire to approve the application with • only the garage to exceed the top of curb and no living area (including the entry and elevator area). He indicated that two letters were received from residents regarding the preservation of views. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, indicated the location of the proposed fireplaces on the revised plan. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Laycock explained that the revised plan shows that a portion of the living area, elevator, and entry exceed top of curb approximately 1 foot 6 inches, and is approximately 18 feet 6 inches wide, excluding garage. He explained that the elevator and entry area is 11 feet wide. Mr. Neil Cowan, 7505 Hampden Avenue, West Hollywood, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that a revised plan was submitted which would allow the elevator shaft and the entry to be level with the garage so as to allow entrance to the dwelling without using steps. Mr. Cowan addressed the comparisons that have been made • concerning the ground slope of the subject structure and 3713 -4- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ocean Boulevard. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Cowan concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" with the exception of Finding No. 9 and modified Condition No. 2 as suggested in the addendum to the staff report. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Cowan explained that the elevator equipment would be installed at a lower floor level, and the skylights have been eliminated. Mr. Jack Berry, 3712 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he requested approval of the addendum to Exhibit "B" inasmuch as modified Exhibit "B" would require the applicant to comply with the zoning regulations. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Berry explained that the existing structure on the subject property varies from 4 foot 6 inches to 8 foot 6 inches. iThere being no others to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the elevation of the elevator, Mr. Laycock explained that Exhibit "B" as originally submitted allowed the elevator and entry area to exceed 1 foot 6 inches at top of curb. The public hearing was reopened and Mr. Cowan reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards. Mr. Cowan explained that the entry and the elevator areas exceed the top of curb by 1 foot 6 inches; however, the elevator equipment is internal. Mr. Cowan further explained that it is possible to design the elevator so as not to exceed the top of curb; however, he indicated that the applicant has requested that there be a straight entry between the garage and the elevator. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover and Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Cowan explained that if the addendum to Exhibit "B" would be approved that the applicant • would be required to use a series of steps from the garage to the -5- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX elevator. He further explained that the applicants have requested a straight entry from the garage to the elevator for a potential wheelchair access. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the extension of the front of the building as stated in the staff report, Mr. Cowan explained that the reference applies to Exhibit "A" only. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Commissioner Pers6n made a motion to approve Variance No. 1165 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B" as originally submitted wherein he stated that the applicant has made an attempt to comply with the Planning Commission's concerns on Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the elimination of skylights goes beyond what he expected from the applicant. Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion on the basis there is a potential handicap situation. Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion on the basis that the existing structure blocks the view of the ocean and the proposed structure substantially improves the public view, the unusual circumstances of the slopes, and the need for elevator access. All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1165 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" (Approves garage to exceed height above top of curb, restricts height of living area). MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep • -6- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX slope which is significantly different than the other lots on the upland side of Ocean Boulevard. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is lower in height than the existing structure and in some cases lower in height to other buildings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or worldng in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed project. (as revised) will result in decreased public view impairment than presently exists on the site and will greatly enhance the existing public views as delineated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 5. That the proposed development is designed to minimize the alterations of natural landforms along the bluff. 6. 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. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the grade of the access to the garage has been increased to a maximum of 20 percent in order to reduce the height of the proposed project and thereby increase the -7- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES db A � dF\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX public view of the ocean. This design alternative reduced the overall height of the project as viewed from Ocean Boulevard. 9. That it would be virtually impossible to design a garage which would not exceed the height of the top of curb of Ocean Boulevard. However, the required height of the garage does not justify the height of the living area, other than the entry and elevator, to exceed the height of top of curb. 10. That the proposed living area can be reduced in height so as not to exceed the top of curb height which is consistent with project approved at 3713 Ocean Boulevard. Also that there is no justification for the increased height of the living area to exceed the height of top of curb which would further impair the view which would be enjoyed by the public at • large. 11. That this project is similar in. most regards to the approval associated with Variance No. 1129 on property located at 3713 Ocean Boulevard and has been redesigned to similar standards to achieve a structure of reduced height. 12. That the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed encroachment into the required front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, inasmuch as the proposed construction is a subterranean extension of an existing nonconforming encroachment that will not adversely obstruct any views from adjoining residential properties or from Ocean Boulevard. i -8- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES A 'pow , ocq P° \\ OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan, floor plans, elevations and revised sections, except as noted below. 2. That the height of the proposed structure shall be designed to maximize the driveway slope access to the garage such that the overall height of the garage structure shall not exceed 3 feet ± above top of curb height. Also, that the height of any living area, other than on entry and elevator area shall not exceed the top .of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. The height of the entry and elevator area shall not exceed a height of 1 foot 6 inches above top of curb height, at the worst case, and shall be limited to a maximum width of 11 feet. For the purpose of this condition the width shall be considered the dimension parallel to Ocean • Boulevard. 3. That the chimney shall not .exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and any portion of said chimney which extends above top of curb shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this condition, the width or depth of the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Boulevard. 4. That no on -site walls or fences shall exceed the height of top of curb on Ocean Boulevard unless a modification to the Zoning Code is approved by the Modifications Committee. 5. That the applicant shall provide verification during the course of construction that the proposed development fully complies with Condition No. 1 above. Required verification shall be prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to final inspections of retaining walls, foundations,and rough framing; and prior to building final. i -9- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES PO .� A � 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That the applicant shall sign a waiver of all claims against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All required waiver documents shall first approved by the City Attorney and subsequently submitted to the City of Newport Beach for recordation with the County Recorder's Office. 7. That a geological report that determines areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits for construction or demolition. 8. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the improvements. 10. That the existing drive apron be removed and replaced with curb and sidewalk; that the new drive apron shall be constructed, as approved by the Public Works Department, using five (5) foot wide "X's" modified from City Standard Drawing 163 -L and that work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. This encroachment permit shall be approved prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits or any Approval -In- Concept submitted for Coastal Commission approval. 11. That the proposed driveway grade from Ocean Boulevard have a minimum 8 inches hike up from the Ocean Boulevard flow line to back of sidewalk; and that the driveway design be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits or any Approval -In- Concept submitted for Coastal Commission approval. • -10- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 12. That a City Council approved encroachment agreement be executed by the property owner for any proposed stairs, retaining walls, railings, steep driveway slopes or other landscape features proposed on the Ocean Boulevard right= of -way in order to protect the City from liability caused by the construction and /or existence of said improvements. This agreement must be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits or any Approval -In- Concept submitted for Coastal Commission approval. 13. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 14. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment • and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 15. That the project consultants shall investigate and determine whether or not the existing improvements or structures (including retaining walls and the seawall), which are to be incorporated into the proposed development, are substandard and if so, shall provide recommendations for modification or removal of those substandard structures. 16. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 17. That the grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 18. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. -11- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 19. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 20. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 21. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 22. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 23. That prior to issuance of the grading permits, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 24. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits. 25. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • -12- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES 0 �O 0 ''k \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No 3289 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3289A permitted the establishment of a 53 unit motel facility and related Approved restaurant and cocktail lounge on property located in the 'Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment involves a request to change the operational characteristics of the existing restaurant so as: to increase the "net public area" of the restaurant facility and the addition of a cocktail lounge; to increase the hours of operation of the restaurant facility from a closing time of 10:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. daily; and to allow the establishment of live entertainment, to include a piano bar and strolling musicians in the restaurant facility, and a pipe organ in the motel lobby. LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at 2300 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from • Cano's Restaurant, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Newport Dynasty, Inc., Newport Beach OWNERS: Chili Mao and Yean M. Kuo, San Clemente William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, indicated that the parking requirement as stated in the staff report suggests one parking space for each 47.7 square feet whereas the parking requirement should indicate 47 square feet. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jed Landon appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant wherein he requested that the establishment be referred to as a hotel and not a motel. He stated that the theater organ shall be played only for entertainment purposes during Saturday and Sunday brunch. In reference to Condition No. 13, Exhibit. "A', Mr. Landon requested that the condition be • modified to state that the organ concerts would be limited between -13- COMMISSIONERS � ti0d d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 9, 1990MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the hours of 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays: Mr. Landon addressed the noise that emits from West Coast Highway, and the one emergency exit at the rear of the hotel. Mr. Landon concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W', with the exception that Condition No. 13 be modified to limit the organ concerts from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Landon explained that the organ technically has some amplification. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Landon stated that the Steinway grand piano located at the piano bar would not be amplified. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the specific type of organ, Mr. Landon explained that it is a duplication of the Rialto Theater organ in New York City that was used for silent movies. Chairman Debay stated that Condition No. 16 gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the use permit if it has been determined that the operation is detrimental to the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Mr. Landon, Mr. Laycock explained that the subject establishment is within the Coastal zone and any discretionary action by the Planning Commission or City Council requires a Coastal Permit. Mr. Laycock indicated that Coastal approval could take from 4 to 8 weeks unless the application is waived. Mr. Laycock further explained that the change in operational characteristics which required an amended use permit also requires Coastal Commission approval. Ms. Betty Kent, 2317 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and she explained that her property is approximately 8 feet from the subject property. She addressed her concerns regarding noise emanating from the Municipal Parking Lot, and the Margaritaville restaurant late at night. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Ms. Kent explained that her house is approximately 200 feet from the subject -14- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES o'O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III Jill INDEX establishment. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the owner of Margaritaville restaurant indicated that he would be willing to discuss Ms. Kent's concerns regarding the restaurant. Ms. Vicky Viesche, 2401 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein she stated that she is the back door neighbor of the subject establishment. She addressed her concerns regarding the satellite dishes that exist against her property, the trash dumpsters that are centered in the parking lot, the late hour of the proposed musical entertainment, and the noise that would be emitted from the subject parking lot. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3289 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W, including corrected Condition No. 7, and modify Condition No. 13 so as to amend the concert hours from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that staff has not been informed of any trash containers in the parking lot. He further explained that if the satellite dish antenna on the building meets the Zoning Code requirements then a permit is not required; however, if the satellite dish does not meet the regulations then a permit must be issued from the Planning Department. Commissioner Edwards reluctantly supported the motion on the basis that the Planning Commission may review the use permit; however, he stated his concerns regarding the noise emanating into the neighborhood. Commissioner Pers6n supported the motion on the basis that the subject application is a permitted use in a commercial zone, and that the request for musical instruments is permitted in a commercial zone. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the residents • -15- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX could contact the Police Department if they are concerned with the parking lot noise that exists a long distance from the residential area. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3289 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including corrected Condition No. 7 and revised Condition No. 13, amending All Ayes the organ concerts from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental . impact. 3. That the proposed restaurant use can be adequately served by existing on -site parking. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3289 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3289 shall remain in effect. 3. That valet parking service shall not be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. -16- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES .o � o� °may pO �A �rL A .\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III Jill I INDEX 4. That dancing shall not be permitted in conjunction with this restaurant or lounge facility unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That all restaurant employees shall be required to park on- site at all times during the time which the restaurant facility is operating. 6. That the parking lot shall provide a minimum of 103 parking spaces which includes a maximum of 23 compact parking spaces (22.9 %). 7. That one parking space for each 47 square feet of "net public area" in the restaurant facility shall be provided on- site. 8. That only 50 motel rooms shall be permitted on -site. 9. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 10. That the restriping of the on -site parking lot, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 11. That the hours of operation of the restaurant facility and the lounge shall be limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. daily, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That the sound from the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure; and further that all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed when live entertainment is conducted on the site. 13. That the live entertainment shall be limited as follows: one • strolling violin player, or strolling string duets or trios -17- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES Po \ 0 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX allowed within the interior of the restaurant and lounge; the piano bar shall be restricted to within the restaurant and bar lounge area and limited to the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. daily; and the pipe organ concerts shall be limited to the motel lobby area and restricted to the hours from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays only. This approval does not include musical groups which rely on amplified sound nor pre - recorded amplified music unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission.. 14. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 15. That a Coastal Permit shall be required prior to the implementation of the change in operational characteristics. 16. That the Planning Commission may add or modify • conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 17. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. s x s A Use Permit No 3386 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of a combined UP3386 commercial /residential development on property located in the C -1 District which is currently developed with an existing commercial building. AND • -18- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES °� : °� d �' � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX B. Use Permit No. 1862 (Amended)(Public Hearing) UP1862A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which V1171 permitted the expansion of an existing coin - operated laundry coast - a to facility and which included an off -site parking agreement which 8 -23 -90 required that a minimum of 4 parking spaces, portions of 5 other parking spaces and related access be provided on a portion of the subject property which the applicant is now proposing to redevelop. The proposed amendment involves a request to delete 3 of the previously required off -site parking spaces and the related parking access which were previously required. to be provided on the subject property. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a proposed parking space to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to a 10 foot wide alley. AND C. Variance No. 1171 (Public Hearing) Request to waive 3 of the previously required offstreet parking spaces for an existing commercial building on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lots 20 -22, Block 3, East Newport Tract, located at 500 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of Island Avenue and West Balboa Boulevard, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: G1 APPLICANTS: Martha and Robert Durkee, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. • -19- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES .o d \4\\10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III Jill I INDEX Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3386, All Ayes Use Permit No. 1862 (Amended) and Variance No. 1171 to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No 3263 (Amended),(Public Hearino Item No.5 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3263 permitted the establishment of a restaurant with expanded interior dining and patio dining areas to be operated in conjunction with an Approved existing retail and nonconforming wholesale coffee business located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand the hours of operation so as to allow a 12:00 midnight closing on a nightly basis, whereas the • exiting required closing time is 6:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays. The proposal also includes a request to add live entertainment to the restaurant activities which will include poetry readings, guitar playing and small musical. groups and a request to transfer a portion of the development rights of the adjoining lot (Lot 19, Block 430, Lancaster's Addition) to the restaurant building site. LOCATION: Lots 18 and 19, Block 430, Lancaster's Addition, located at 506 31st Street, on the southerly side of 31st Street, between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue, in Cannery Village. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Alta Coffee Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Cannery Village Investment Partnership, Newport Beach -20- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES .o �°� a��� A �� �" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Persdn stepped down from the dais inasmuch as the subject establishment is within 300 feet of his residence and the application could have a financial impact on the value of his. property- The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Tony Wilson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilson addressed staffs concern that the change in the operational characteristics of the use permit would cause the restaurant to be a destination point, and the restaurant patrons would use Saint James Episcopal Church's parking lot. Mr. Wilson explained that there would not be an impact on traffic inasmuch as the majority of the local customers will walk or bicycle to the establishment. He further explained that a small patio will be added which will allow an area for patrons to sit outdoors and dine during the evening hours. Mr. Wilson displayed a drawing of the proposed patio area. In reference to Condition No. 28, Use Permit No. 3263, approved by the Planning Commission on April 5, 1990, • Mr. Wilson informed the Planning Commission that he is aware that access must be provided for customers from the restaurant to the outdoor patio dining area so as to eliminate the use of the public right -of -way for passage. He indicated the entertainment that would be provided would have a minimal impact on the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Wilson stated that the applicants would consider a revision to the evening hours of operation if necessary. Mr. Kelly Sandor, 430 Redlands Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his support of the application. Ms. Sampson, a former employee of Alta Coffee, appeared before the Planning Commission to state her support of the application on the basis that there is not a similar coffee establishment in the area that is open during the evening hours. Jane Elliott, 508 -1/2 31st Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the application on the basis that the establishment is an asset to the area and attracts a quality local • clientele. -21- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES A t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Doris Sandor, 246 Orange Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the coffee establishment. Mr. Tony Shepardson, 421 33rd Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the operation and the entertainment on the basis the coffee shop is an asset to the neighborhood and the City. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano stated that Condition No. 9, allows the Planning Commission to review the use permit in the event the operation is detrimental to the community. He explained that the Motion establishment epitomizes the intent of Cannery Village. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3263 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". • Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with the foregoing motion inasmuch as Alta Coffee has a community spirit that is widely supported by the neighbors, and is an asset to the neighborhood. Chairman Debay addressed the concerns that Saint James Episcopal Church has expressed regarding the parking lot, and she requested that the restaurant's patrons be informed to park only where they are permitted. * * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3263 (Amended) Ayes Absent * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed transfer of development intensity is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That. the transfer of development intensity will result in a • more efficient use of land and an increase in public visual -22- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX open space inasmuch as the amount of development which would otherwise be permitted on Lot 19 is being reduced. 3. That the transfer of development intensity will result in a net benefit to the aesthetics of the area. 4. That the increased development on the site, including above grade covered parking, does not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the surrounding area inasmuch as the existing building is not being increased in size. 5. That the proposed uses and structures, including above grade covered parking, are compatible with the surrounding. area. 6. That the increased development on the increased site, including above grade covered parking, will not result in • significant impairment of public views than currently exists. 7. That the increased site is physically suitable for the development proposed, including above grade covered parking, taking into consideration existing on -site characteristics. 8. That the transfer of development intensity will not result in a net negative impact on the circulation system. 9. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the proposed project utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed per City Council Policy S -1. 10. That the proposed uses and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic generating uses as restricted by covenant agreement. 11. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. -23- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES �0 y� 0 �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 12. That the Police Department does not anticipate any problem with the proposed facility. 13. That the transfer of development intensity will eliminate the existing nonconforming FAR of the subject property and any future development associated with the subject property. 14. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3263 (Amended) to allow the proposed transfer of development intensity 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 to the general welfare of the City. 15. That public improvements may be required of a developer • per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of previous Use Permit No. 3263 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 3. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded against the decreased site assuring that all of the requirements of Section 20.07.070 J, will be met by the current and future property owners. 4. That the restaurant facility shall be open only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight daily and any increase in the hours shall be subject to approval of an amendment to this use permit. • -2A- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES � 0 � �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the proposed covenant initiating the transfer of development intensity. 6. That no dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 7. That the sound from the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure; and further that all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed when live entertainment is conducted on the site. 8. That no on -sale alcoholic beverages shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject restaurant, unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this Use Permit. 9. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, cause injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 10. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x : s A. Use Permit No. 3388 (Public Hearing) item No. 6 Request to permit the construction of a 12 unit bed and breakfast UP3388 facility and related off - street parking on property located in the v1170 'Retail and Service Commercial' area of the Cannery Denied Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental • document. -25- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES 0 �' \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX AND B. Variance No. 1170 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 12 unit bed and breakfast facility and related off - street parking, on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village McFadden Square Specific Plan Area, which will exceed the allowable Base Floor Area Ratio of 0.5. LOCATION: Lots 10-13, Block 120, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 2005 -2009 West Balboa Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of West BalboaBoulevard, between McFadden Square and 20th Street, in Central Newport. ZONE: SP -6 • APPLICANT: Andrade Architects, Dana Point OWNER: Richard Lawrence, Orange The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Terry Odle appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Odle referred to the footnotes contained in the staff report wherein he addressed the City's bed and breakfast requirement that one parking space shall be provided for each guest room, and he further stated that the applicants have provided for the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley. Mr. Odle concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 11, requesting that a 3 foot right -of -way be dedicated to the public for pedestrian purposes along the West Balboa frontage. He stated the requirement would have an impact on the proposed parking design. He referred to the planter adjacent to the subject property that is located in the 3 foot right -of -way. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the foregoing sidewalk located between 20th Street and 21st Street on West Balboa Boulevard does not conform with other existing sidewalks inasmuch -26- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES A �O �� 0 '\\"' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX as it is not at least 8 feet wide. He addressed the 8 foot high wall adjacent to the sidewalk and the low planter that is located adjacent to the subject property, and the merging lane on Balboa Boulevard that is adjacent to the curb. Mr. Webb described the difficulty that pedestrians have walking side -by -side in the area, and he said that if a setback is not required to provide walking space greater than 5 feet there will be significant problems as the area builds out. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Webb indicated that he would suggest a modification to the Zoning Code that would provide a minimum sidewalk width adjacent to commercial developments. Chairman Debay and Mr. Webb suggested that said recommendation could be considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Odle and Commissioner Merrill discussed the size and accessibility of the roof deck, and the 12 chimneys that would be the same height as the parapet on the roof. • Mr. Douglas Boyd, President of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, appeared before the Planning Commission He addressed the concerns the Association has regarding the project's impact at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard, and the traffic circulation at West Balboa Boulevard and 20th Street. Mr. Irwin Galvin, property owner of 2001 and 2003 West Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed his concerns regarding the hazards at the intersection of 20th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, and he indicated the proposed parking area would not be accessible to the public. Mr. Tom Hyans, President of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hyans stated that the Association's Board of Directors recently addressed the public notices received from the City regarding proposed projects in the area. He stated that the Association expressed concerns regarding the recent rezoning of the area and the applications that have been approved during the past two months and has recommended that the Planning Commission • be more conservative in considering applications that would allow -27- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES �0'\\k\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX intensification of use in the Balboa Peninsula area and the residential areas. In response to a question posed by Commissioner PersGn, Mr. Hyans stated that the Board of Directors did not have a specific opinion concerning the proposed project. Commissioner PersGn commented that the proposed project's Floor Area Ratio is included in the covered parking area. Mr. Hyans commented that the bulk of the project would have an impact on the residential area. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that recently approved ordinances have made it difficult for property owners with a single home to develop a desired structure, and he alluded to the fact that there would be more applications in the future. He indicated that there will continue to be problems from property owners who want to demolish and rebuild a home. • Chairman Debay pointed out that the proposed bed and breakfast facility is an annex to the Doryman's Inn, and is not considered to be the same as 12 apartment units. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hyans regarding a curb cut, Mr. Webb stated that the Public Works Department would not recommend an issuance of a curb cut permit inasmuch as it would not be a safe location for a driveway. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hyans replied that the Association is concerned with the intensification of the use in the residential area, encroachments into alleys, congestion, and building bulk. Mr. Hyans further replied that the Association has considered the Doryman's Inn to be a good neighbor and an asset to the area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the commercial area that is in close proximity to the residential area, and he commented that the on . * project has merit. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. -28- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES ,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3388 and Variance No. 1170 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Di Sano stated that findings exist to support the variance. Commissioner PersGn did not support the motion on the basis that the project could be accomplished without a variance. Commissioner Glover did not support the motion on the basis that the building bulk would intensify the area, and she could not find a reason to grant the variance. Substitute Substitute motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3388 and Motion * Variance No. 1170 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit Ayes * * * * 'B ". Commissioner Merrill explained that he could not find the Noes * applicants' arguments persuasive enough to grant the variance. He said the project is bulky, the parking could go underground, and the project would not benefit the public. • Commissioner Edwards supported the substitute motion inasmuch as he had concerns regarding the intensification of use. Substitute motion was voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3388 and Variance No. 1170 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: 1. That an environmental document is not needed for a project which is denied. B. Use Permit No. 3388: 1. That the increased building height results in a project which is higher than development common in the McFadden Square area. 2. That construction of the project will result in undesirable and abrupt scale relationships between the proposed structure and existing development. -29- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the architectural character of the project does not contribute to the general theme of a marine environment. 4. That the project has not been designed so as to provide increased public visual open space inasmuch as there is no additional open space provided on the ground floor of the project which is adjacent to a public right -of -way. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3388 will, 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. C. Variance No. 1170: 1. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, creates an abrupt change in scale between the proposed development and the adjoining development located southeasterly of the project site. 2. That the physical improvements of the bed and breakfast use could possibly be converted to a use that could generate a greater amount of traffic than that which the traffic equivalency was based. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the development proposed, including above grade covered parking. • -30- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES �0'\ ' \ CITY OF NEWPORT 13EACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3389 (Public Hearing) item No.7 Request to make alterations and additions to an existing UP3389 nonconforming duplex located on property in the SP -6 (R -1) District. The proposed alterations include: the expansion of an Approved existing living room, the conversion of an existing bedroom into a new entry, and the enclosure of an existing two car carport to a two car garage, all on the ground floor of the project; and the enclosure of a second floor deck which is to be used as part of a stairwell to a new third floor landing, roof deck and storage area. The proposal also includes the following modifications to the Zoning Code: a request to allow the carport enclosure to encroach 3 feet into the required 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to Court Street; to allow new recessed book shelves on the first and second floors,. a desk area on the ground floor, and a second floor kitchen window to encroach 1 foot into the required 3 foot side yard setbacks; and a fireplace and chimney to encroach 2 feet into the required 5 foot • front yard setback adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 119, First Addition, Newport Beach, located at 111 19th Street, on the southwesterly comer of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in Central Newport. ZONE: SP -6 (R -1) APPLICANTS: Mrs. Agnes Caballero and Sinon Falvey, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Linnert, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. Mr. Linnert addressed the enclosure of a carport, a chimney that would encroach into a 5 foot front yard setback area adjacent to Court Street, and the sight distance at the intersection of Court Street and 19th Street. • -31- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES � � o �° �� 0 .\ "' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay regarding Exhibit "B ", Mr. Linnert stated that Exhibit "B" does not allow a carport or chimney encroachment. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, responded to Mr. Linnert's concerns that were previously addressed and he explained that the Zoning Code provides for a 2 foot encroachment for a fireplace chimney in a front yard setback if the front yard setback is at least 10 feet deep whereas the subject property has a 5 foot front yard setback and would require the approval of the Modifications Committee. Mr.. Laycock explained that the. concern regarding sight distance pertains to the carport on Court Street and 19th Street. Mr. Laycock referred to the portion of the structure that contains bookshelves which he said encroaches into the interior side yard setback and he explained that said encroachment would obstruct light and air of the adjoining residence. Mr. Linnert responded that concerns regarding sight distance should be reviewed from a different perspective inasmuch as Court Street is a one -way street. Mr. Linnert explained that the proposed duplex will be a • permanent residence for retired persons. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the one -way street, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that Court Street is one -way and the concern is more than just the view plane from the street inasmuch as the enclosed garage is 2 feet from the sidewalk and it could be a hazard to pedestrians when the garage door opens and the automobile backs out on to the street. Mr. Webb indicated that staff would not recommend a solid wall at the intersection. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the carport, Mr. Webb replied that staff would not object if a wrought iron gate was installed at the entrance to the carport. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that zero clearance through- the -wall vent fireplaces eliminate the need for a fireplace stack. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is possible to have a fireplace without having the stack encroach into the setback area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Linnert stated that inasmuch as the applicants have requested that the fireplace, be a focal point they would prefer that the fireplace • remain at the end of the building. -32- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES \ q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Linnert and Commissioner Merrill discussed the flue extension of the existing chimney that is required 2 feet above the adjacent roof. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Linnert replied that if the third story roof was eliminated then the extension on the chimney would not be required. Mr. Sinon Falvey, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that he owns the property with his sister, Ms. Agnes Caballero, and they have resided on the property for 27 years. Mr. Falvey explained the restraints that the City put on the original structure that was constructed on the odd - shaped lot 27 years ago. Mr. Falvey addressed his discussion with staff regarding the chimney, carport, and bay windows into the setback areas prior to submitting the use permit application. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the third story deck, Mr. Falvey explained that a 29 foot roof is allowed and a 26 foot roof is proposed. He stated that a small deck • on the second floor is proposed over the living area. Mr. Falvey emphasized that as permanent residents and property owners in the area that they are concerned about their health, safety, comfort and general welfare. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman Debay stated that the existing structure is an older, nonconforming duplex on a 2,197 square foot lot that is being built bigger by building out into the sideyards, and she regretted that the plans were not drawn so the nonconforming situation was not made worse. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Chairman Debay's Motion foregoing statements. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3389 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B ". Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with the motion wherein he stated that . there are solutions to the problem based on new • fireplace technology and the ability to secure the carport area in a -33- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES �d�i dc's � N \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX manner that would allow security and provide circulation in the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Laycock replied that the area was recently rezoned from R -3 to R- 1. Commissioner Pers6n indicated his concern with respect to approving a nonconforming duplex and perpetuating the multi- family designation on a lot that is too small to accommodate a duplex. He reluctantly supported the motion. Mr. Laycock stated that if it is the desire of the Planning Commission to allow a wrought iron fence it would also require an approval of the Planning Commission inasmuch as the wrought iron fence would encroach into the setback area on Court Street. The , maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion as recommended. * * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3389 subject to * the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B" (incorporating the suggestions of staff). MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. 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. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 3. That the proposed application is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Plan; however,the Municipal Code allows the application to be considered under Section 20.83.040 Increase and Intensification of Nonconforming Uses and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -34- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES `O d N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the proposed garage encroachment adjacent to Court Street will have a detrimental effect on sight distance at the intersection of Court Street and 19th Street, unless the enclosure is of open construction. 5. That the chimney encroachment into the front yard setback adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard may set a precedent for similar encroachments as other lots on West Balboa Boulevard, which would be detrimental to the streetscape.. 6. That the proposed bookshelf encroachments into the westerly side yard setback would affect the flow of light and . air to the adjoining residential property, and therefore, would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • 7. That the proposed ground floor desk area and second floor garden window encroachments into the side yard setback adjacent to 19th Street are minor architectural features. 8. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3389 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the existing carport shall only be enclosed by wrought iron or other construction of an open nature, inasmuch as solid walls and doors would adversely affect sight distance at the intersection of Court Street and 19th Street. The -35- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES 0 O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX proposed design of the enclosure shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. That the existing carports shall be utilized for the parking of vehicles only. 4. That the proposed bookshelf encroachments into the westerly side yard setback, and the fireplace and chimney encroachment into the front yard setback adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard shall not be permitted. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to . obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That a 3 foot by 3 foot comer cutoff at the corner of Court Avenue and 19th Street and the comer of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard be dedicated to the public. 8. That curb access ramps be constructed at the intersections of Court Street and 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard and 19th Street; that the existing block wall at the comer of Court Street and 19th Street be reconstructed behind the proposed comer cutoff dedication; that the curb return at the intersection of West Balboa Boulevard and 19th Street be reconstructed to a 10 foot radius with an access ramp included and that the block wall be moved back behind the proposed corner cutoff dedication; and that eave overhangs be modified so that they do not encroach into the public easements. 9. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by • proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. -36- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES � `° °ter' �,� �� �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 10. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 11. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 12. Walls, signs and landscaping shall conform to STD 110-L to provide adequate sight distance. 13. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. . 14. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1169 (Public Hearing) stem No.8 Request to permit alterations, additions and the conversion of an V1169 existing garage to a single family dwelling and 2 car garage, on Approved property located in the R -1 District. Said variance includes: a request to exceed the allowable gross structural area; and a request to waive all of the required open space. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed additions to encroach 17 feet 6 inches into the required 20 foot front yard setback, 1 foot into the required interior side yard setback and 6 feet 6 inches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 15, Block 26, East Side Addition, Balboa Tract, located at 1700 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northerly side of -37- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES � o.o �0 \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX East Balboa Boulevard, between I Street and J Street, on Peninsula Point. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Gary Vose, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Gary Vose, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he reviewed the request for the variance. He indicated there would not be a need for a modification for the permitted height inasmuch as the height is currently uncertain and there is no intent to exceed the height. Mr. Vose referred to Condition No. 4 regarding landscaping and he requested that the existing landscaping be allowed to remain. Don • Webb, City Engineer, concurred with Mr. Vose. Mr. Webb explained that the landscaping is minor in nature and as long as the landscaping is not expanded there will not be a problem. In response to a question posed by Mr. Webb regarding the encroachment of the landscaping, Mr. Vose explained that the landscaping closest to Balboa Boulevard encroaches approximately 1 foot, and the remaining landscaping encroaches approximately 3- 1/2 feet. Mr. Vose explained that the tree is closer to the garage then 3 -1/2 feet whereby Mr. Webb stated that landscaping would be allowed that is low ground cover within 6 feet of the alley which would allow the one tree to remain. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1169 subject to the All ayes findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 4 as follows: "That no construction shall be permitted in the 7 foot side yard adjacent to the alley, and that only ground cover landscaping be allowed within 6 feet of the alley." -38- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES � � o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pers6n supported the motion on the basis that a variance would be the only method to develop the property. Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1169 including amended Condition No. 4. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the , land. and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District, inasmuch as the subject property is quite small and is comprised of the rear portion of a previously subdivided lot . and that the resulting reorientation of the property has resulted in overly restrictive setbacks which result in no buildable area on the site. In a similar manner, the required setbacks have prohibited the applicant from • providing the required volume of open space, inasmuch as all of the open space provided is located within a required setback area. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and that the resulting open space from the proposed setbacks is adequate for the subject property. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. • -39- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the proposed encroachments into the required front, rear and side yard setbacks will not under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance • with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the approval of building permits. 3. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley, unless approved by the City Council. 4. That no construction shall be permitted in the 7 foot side yard adjacent to the alley, and that only ground cover landscaping be allowed within 6 feet of the alley. 5. That no fences or walls shall be constructed along the East Balboa Boulevard frontage within 15 feet of the alley right - of-way in order to maintain vehicular sight distance. 6. That two garage spaces shall be maintained for vehicular storage at all times. • -40- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That the proposed gross structural area shall not exceed 1,720± sq. ft. 8. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. General Plan Amendment No 89 -2( )(Public Hearing) Item No.9 Request to amend the General Plan Circulation Element to add a GPA 89 -2J roadway classification for a "Commuter" Two Lanes Undivided, and classify Marguerite Avenue between East Coast Highway and 5th Approved Avenue in Corona del Mar as a "Commuter" roadway. Resolution No. 1231 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach . The public hearing was opened in connection with this item There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to recommend adoption of General All Ayes Plan Amendment No. 89 -2(J) Resolution No. 1231 to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment No. 90- 2(B)(Public Hearing) Item No.10 Request to amend the General Plan Circulation Element to delete a segment of University Drive from the City s Master Plan of Streets and Highways consistent with recent actions by the Orange GPA 90 -2B Approved County Board of Supervisors to delete the same segment from the Resolution County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. No. 1232 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach • -41- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to recommend General Plan Ayes * * * Amendment No. 90 -2(B) Resolution No. 1232 to the City Council. Noes MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Local Coastal Plan Amendment No 23 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No .11 Request to initiate Amendment No. 23 to the Ucal Coastal LCP No.23 • Program Land Use Plan, establishing a policy regarding private Resolution oceanfront encroachments onto public property and providing for No. 1233 the extension of the existing oceanfront sidewalk and bike path from the Santa Ana River to the West Jetty. Approved IMTIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman Debay briefly addressed the testimony that the Planning Commission heard at the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 1990, and the correspondence that the Planning Commission received prior to the subject public hearing. She acknowledged the time and effort the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee made to come up with a recommendation regarding the issue of oceanfront encroachment. James Hewicker, Planning Director, outlined the July 5, 1990, Planning Commission meeting when the recommendations of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee were reviewed, and the . Planning Commission heard the public's response to the July 3, 1990, Coastal Commission's letter regarding oceanfront encroachments, further beach access, and the extension of a • sidewalk or bicycle trail. Mr. Hewicker explained subsequent to the 42 COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES • "\ \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX July 5, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, staff renoticed the project so as to reword the public notice regarding the oceanfront walk or bicycle trail. Mr. Hewicker stated that subsequent to the July 5, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, the former chairman of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee met with members of the Coastal Commission staff and a representative from the City's Public Works Department. Mr. Hewicker stated that one of three options that the Planning Commission may consider would be the originally proposed LCP wording that addresses the issue of oceanfront encroachments, as follows: "In order to address the problem of beach encroachments, the City shall establish a program whereby revocable encroachment permits may be issued to oceanfront property owners for limited improvements seaward of the property line. Such encroachments shall not extend more than fifteen feet beyond the property line, and shall not be permitted to limit public access to the ocean, eliminate views, nor restrict future use or improvement of the beach for public purposes." Mr. Hewicker said that subsequent to the preparation of the original staff report, a supplemental staff report has been prepared which includes the following two additional paragraphs which the Planning Commission may want to consider as a second option to attempt to address the issues raised by the Coastal Commission staff and the concerns raised by the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee with respect to separating encroachments and public access. He said the paragraphs were written after the Planning Department staff met with the Chairman of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee, and the language was subsequently reviewed by the City Attorney. "Additional physical public access shall be provided along the oceanfront from the Santa Ana River to the West Jetty of the entrance to Newport Harbor. Such access may include, without limitation, the extension and expansion of • the ocean front walkway." -43- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES 0 ,r o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX "The City Council shall direct staff to investigate the various means of increasing lateral and vertical access and shall select a preferred alternative within twenty four months of the final adoption of this policy. Implementation and construction shall commence within twenty four months thereafter." Mr. Hewicker stated that the City would be committed to a program within the next two years that would include public hearings on all matters of trying to enhance or provide public access to the oceanfront. He explained that during the subject public hearing that specific proposals regarding public access will not be addressed. He indicated that 48 months after approval by the City Council and the Coastal Commission, the City would start an implementation program for construction of approved improvements. Mr. Hewicker stated that the third option that the Planning • Commission may consider would be to make a recommendation to the City Council that there be no oceanfront encroachments. Mr. Hewicker stated that slides are available of oceanfront access amenities that exist in other beach communities throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the supplemental staff report indicates that if a 15 foot encroachment is approved, that 157,365 square feet or 3.61 acres of additional land would be given up for the encroachments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Sandra Genis, Senior Planner, explained that the number of square feet or acres is the potential maximum if all of the lots encroached to a maximum of 15 feet. In response to a request for clarification by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Genis explained the square footage is the potential inasmuch as it includes existing encroachments that could be built out to 15 feet, it reflects the cutbacks on the existing encroachments that are beyond 15 feet, and it reflects new encroachments taking advantage of the encroachment policy. In response to a request for clarification by Commissioner Pers6n, Ms. Genis stated that the • -44- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES .O ,f, d� d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX encroachment policy would equalize all property owners subject to an Encroachment Permit by the City Council. Commissioner Edwards asked if it would be possible to adopt a policy that only the encroachments that are in existence would be allowed up to 15 feet, but not allow new encroachments. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, replied that equal consideration for an Encroachment Permit would have to be considered for all of the property owners. Commissioner Edwards and Ms. Flory addressed the issue of private property adjoining public property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker explained that the foregoing language as suggested by staff in the supplemental staff report was drafted by the Planning Department staff and reviewed by the City Attorney. In response to Commissioner Di Sano's question regarding what action the Coastal Commission would take if the foregoing option were approved by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hewicker replied that if the subject Local Coastal Plan that the City is required to prepare did not meet immediate approval by the Coastal Commission then the City would meet with the Coastal Commission to work out the differences. Commissioner Glover addressed the option of no oceanfront encroachments, and the Coastal Commission's policy if the property changed title and the property was in compliance. Commissioner Pers6n addressed a letter that was received from Mr. Todd stating that lateral access could not be considered by the Planning Commission, City Council, or Coastal Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill with respect to when the property changes title and if the City could require the removal of the encroachment when the City is making a code enforcement inspection, Mr. Hewicker explained that when property changes title, a Report of Residential Building Records is required which lists the permits that have been issued by the City for construction on that property. He said that the issue of property lines is not addressed. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. • -45- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Hewicker discussed improvements that would not be approved in the encroached area through the permit process. John Wolter, City Civil Engineer, and Jerry Cobb, Past Chairman of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cobb stated that the Coastal Commission staff indicated they are required by the Charter to raise the issue of enhancing further beach access no matter what comes before the Coastal Commission for review, and they favor lateral access along the California coast. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Cobb stated that Mr. Wolter of the Public Works Department was the only City representative at the meetings with the staff of the Coastal Commission. Mr. Cobb stated that subsequent to the foregoing meeting that they met with the Planning Department staff. Mr. Cobb indicated that the Coastal Commission staff understands more fully the recommendation of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee that the beachfront encroachment and further access of an extension of a bicycle trail should. be separated inasmuch as the mix would not lead to a solution of the encroachment issue. He said that the Coastal Commission staff appreciated the actions that the City has taken to enhance public access, and that they fully understood why the Committee recommended the 15 foot encroachment. Mr. Cobb concluded that it would be in the best interest of all parties involved if the City submits an LCP Amendment consistent with the Committee's recommendations of the Encroachment Policy along with an additional commitment to develop and implement a plan for further enhancement of public access. He said that it was clear during the meetings that the Coastal Commission staff wants the City to solve the encroachment issue. Mr. Cobb recommended that the Planning Commission approve the LCP Amendment language that adopts the Committee's recommendation on encroachment, commits the City to initiate a separate study of alternatives for further enhancement of public access, and commits to an initial implementation within 24 months. He said that the recommendation would be a reasonable compromise for all parties involved. • -46- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES ,o 03,x, pp 0 '\\' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Cobb stated that the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee consisted of a City Council representative, the City Attorney, a representative from the Public Works Department, past Chairman of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and five representatives from three Homeowner's Associations including a resident who does not live on the beach, two residents who reside on the boardwalk, and two residents who live on the beacbfront and not on the boardwalk. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill with respect to Mr. Cobb's foregoing testimony regarding the sidewalk and lateral public access to a bike trail, Mr. Cobb replied that it was difficult to discriminate between bicycles and pedestrian use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n regarding the meetings that Mr. Cobb attended, Mr. Cobb replied that he was speaking as Past Chairman of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee and that he was only speaking on his own behalf. Commissioner Pers6n asked Mr. Cobb if he favored the additional . language that staff submitted in the supplemental staff report stating "that additional public access shall be provided along the oceanfront from the Santa Ana River to the West Jetty of the entrance to Newport Harbor. Such access may include, without limitation, the extension and expansion of the oceanfront walkway." Mr. Cobb replied that he would replace "additional physical" with "enhanced public access ", and the second paragraph would be revised from "The City Council shall direct staff to investigate the various means of increasing lateral and vertical access" to "various means of 'enhancing' lateral and vertical access ". Mr. Cobb explained that it was his opinion that Coastal Commission staff may accept the recommendations from the Committee to the Coastal Commission, and the Coastal Commission would consider a recommendation by the City if the City would commit to a study reviewing additional ways to enhance access. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to encroaching landscaping, Mr. Cobb replied that landscaping was discussed by the Committee. Mr. Cobb advised that the statistics showed that of the 295 encroachments, 254 of the encroachments exceed 5 feet, and iceplant was not considered an encroachment. He explained that the Committee first considered -47- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES �ON 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX a fence or barrier as encroachments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding Coastal Commission staffs reference to beachfront access, Mr. Cobb referred to the final report that was distributed by the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee that listed what the City has done to enhance access and he said that staff was receptive to what the Committee reported to them inasmuch as Newport Beach has accomplished more than most Coastal cities. Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Cobb, and Mr. Wolter discussed the existing access to the beach. Mr. Cobb addressed the 5 foot encroachment that the Coastal Commission allowed in Del Mar. Mr. Wolter stated that the Committee indicated to the Coastal Commission staff that the City has been attempting to resolve the encroachment issue, and based on the controversy surrounding oceanfront sidewalks and bicycle paths, further studies and details need to be addressed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Cobb replied that low patio improvements and not spas and barbecues are the typical encroachments. Commissioner Merrill asked if a low patio improvement could be considered a wall that does not exceed 3 feet. Mr. Cobb concurred that the Committee and Coastal Commission staff agreed to allow patio improvements and landscaping that does not exceed 3 feet, and they opposed spas or improvements that require Building Permits. Mr. Cobb concurred that the Committee discussed differentiation of ground level improvements and improvements that exceed ground level that would require removal within 5 years. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the reference in the supplemental staff report to twenty four months, Mr. Hewicker explained that twenty four months was based upon a discussion with the Planning Department staff with respect to the time period that would be required to produce a study and hold public hearings. Following a discussion by the Planning Commission, it was determined that each speaker be allowed 3 minutes on the basis that many persons wanted to testify during the public hearing. -48- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES � o �0 � q� 0 '\j\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Frank Sprague, 5903 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that when he contacted the City he was not given a definite answer when he asked if a concrete block wall could replace a wooden fence that was in need of repair. Mr. James Pistole, 2146 Miramar Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition to oceanfront encroachment on the basis that the Coastal Act of 1976 prohibits construction of private structures on public beaches without authorization. He stated. if property owners are allowed encroachments by way of Permit it would be unfair to the public, and the Permit fee of $50.00 to $200.00 per year would be unrealistic considering the value of the property that was encroached. Mr. Pistole suggested that the sidewalk be extended from the Santa Ana River to the end of the Balboa Peninsula, that where there is an existing sidewalk there are very few encroachments, that the sidewalk would serve as a buffer zone, that it would be a safe route for children on bicycles and pedestrians, and that the sidewalk could serve as an emergency route to the Peninsula Point if it were designed properly. Mr. Carl Greenwood, 2102 Racquet Hill, Tustin and 4409 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his support of the Committee's recommendation. He suggested that the Planning Commission not address the extension of the sidewalk. Mr. Paul Watkins, 6408 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and he stated that his property encroaches 10 feet. Mr. Watkins indicated that the Committee's recommendation was a good compromise for all of the interested parties. In reference to the foregoing supplemental staff report, Mr. Watkins determined that the language was a preconceived notion inasmuch as the meeting he attended with the Coastal Commission staff indicated that a study would be conducted concerning 'enhanced access' similar to the study concerning encroachments. Mr. Watkins stated that "additional physical public access shall be provided" builds in a bias to the persons who would be involved with the study. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Watkins suggested that "additional physical • public access shall be provided" be amended to state "access -49- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES n'A d '3 O� c*\ �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX enhancement shall be studied" inasmuch as there is no immediate answer to the issue. Mr. Frank Reynolds, 5050 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his support of an encroachment. He advised that he would not upgrade his property until a definite decision has been made regarding the encroachment. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Reynolds replied that he has an existing encroachment that was constructed by the previous property owner many years ago. Mr. Dick Taylor, 5105 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the Committee's recommendation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Taylor replied that his existing encroachment was constructed by a previous property owner. Mr. Tom Bosche, 121 - 30th Street, appeared before the Planning . Commission to support the sidewalk on the basis that many people would benefit by the walkway. Mr. Bosche stated his concern that the Committee was comprised of residents who would benefit by the Committee's recommendation. He suggested that the Planning Commission should make a decision that would make the best use of the City's assets as a way of compensation if the encroachments were allowed to continue. Mr. Spurzem, 2132 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition to the extension of the sidewalk inasmuch as the sidewalk would diminish property values. Mr. Spurzem indicated his opposition to the encroachment inasmuch as property owners are illegally using public land. Mr. Vern Monroe, 5209 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and he advised that his lot is currently level with Seashore Drive and 52 inches lower than the beachfront as opposed to when he purchased his property and the lot was level with the beach and Seashore Drive. He explained that sand and various materials were dumped on the beach when the Santa Ana River channel was cleaned up several years ago, and to protect his property he built a retaining wall and a deck. Mr. Monroe -50- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES PO p & '&\j\0 \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX addressed his concerns with respect to what will happen to his property when he removes the existing encroachment. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Monroe stated that his property encroaches approximately 12 feet. Mr. Gene Crouse, 6502 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his support of the Committee's recommendation. He requested that the issues concerning encroachment and sidewalk be addressed separately. Mr. Crouse stated that there is a need for a buffer zone inasmuch as the public encroaches on private property: Mr. Crouse advised that his 10 foot encroachment was constructed by a previous owner. Mr. Don Atkinson, 1516 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that a previous property owner constructed a 5 foot encroachment on his property, and he added landscaping beyond the 5 feet. Mr. Atkinson said that when the Local Coastal Program was adopted, lateral access was a big issue • with the Coastal Commission staff. He recommended that the landscaping be retained inasmuch as it is aesthetically pleasing to the public, and he requested that the encroachment not be used as a weapon to destroy the quality of the community on Balboa Peninsula Point. Mr. Schnuerer, 6406 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and he stated that his improvements encroach 10 feet. Mr. Schnuerer supported the Committee's recommendation to adopt the 15 foot encroachment policy inasmuch as the landscaping enhances the beauty of the beach. He supported a separate study for the sidewalk. Mr. Nieto, 4028 Channel Place, appeared before the Planning Commission to address his support of the extension of the sidewalk on the basis that it would be safer for pedestrians and bicycle riders. Mr. Nieto stated that the property owners were aware that they did not own the encroached land, and he supported a land assessment fee. He opposed the residents on the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee determining the encroachment fee, and he recommended a private accounting firm to evaluate the • property. -51- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES � d 0 Po ��� db ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Citrano, 5509 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the Committee's recommendation. He explained that his 13 foot encroachment gives him more privacy, and the sand is kept away from the patio. Ms. Lyla Morgan, 3004 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, to read a letter that she wrote on behalf of 1,200 people who signed a petition in support of the extension of the sidewalk. Ms. Morgan explained that approximately 85 percent of the signatures are residents residing in Newport Beach. She said a sidewalk would be fair for everyone who wants to enjoy all of Newport Beach by way of a hard surface, and that Newport Beach should not be separated into a semi- private beach. The Planning Commission recessed at 11:03 p.m. and reconvened at 11:12 p.m. Mr. Max Morgan appeared before the Planning Commission. He . said that findings of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee were mailed to the Coastal Commission staff, and the staff responded to those findings after several months of review. Mr. Morgan stated that it would be unlikely for the Coastal Commission staff to change its position in a subsequent meeting that they had with the Committee inasmuch as they have not provided a written response regarding a change. He addressed the grading on the sand that the City does annually, and he indicated that the City could grade all along the beach if encroachments and landscaping did not exist. Mr. Morgan stated that the property owners can address the results of inclement weather as it develops, that he does not object to the public coming onto his property, a 5 foot encroachment would be sufficient for all of the property owners, and a sidewalk would prohibit more encroachments and the public would be served. Mr. Earl Bunker, 4201 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he distributed a letter that he wrote to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bunker stated that the 8 foot encroachment protected his property from sand. He recommended that the encroachment and sidewalk be addressed separately. -52- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Harry Doyle, 6505 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the recommendations of the Oceanfront Encroachment Committee. He addressed the Land Use Element, dated September, 1988, which states that "the charm and beauty of the residential villages in Newport Beach should be preserved and enhanced ", and he said the Seashore Colony should be considered such a residential community. Mr. Doyle stated that a sidewalk going through the Colony would change the residential quality of the neighborhood and change the attitudes of the residents. Mr. Doyle stated that a sidewalk would be intolerable for many of the residents. Mr. Doyle agreed with Mr. Watkins' foregoing testimony. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n with respect to existing encroachments in the Seashore Colony, Mr. Doyle replied that the Committee has addressed the encroachment issue with a certain amount of compromise and he commented that the encroachments of 10 feet or 15 feet do not threaten the residential integrity of the Seashore • Colony. Ms. Diane Paul, 4707 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the active 'cruising' that takes place on the sidewalk, and she requested that the Planning Commission consider safety for the residents. Mr. Dick Marconi, 1572 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition to lateral access inasmuch as it would spoil a pristine beach. Mr. Edward Rutloff, 5909 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that when his property was developed in 1947, the property owners felt comfortable to encroach 27 feet inasmuch as the property owners were primarily only weekend residents. Mr. Rutloff suggested that the property owners that have been residents since a specific year be 'grandfathered' in, and residents who purchased their property from that date on would have to comply with the approved encroachment policy. Mr. Rutloff stated that if he could not retain the 27 foot encroachment that he would comply with the 15 foot encroachment. He addressed the 13 miles between Huntington • Beach and Newport Beach, and he stated that 10 miles of the 13 -53- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES A �A %P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX miles have sidewalks. Mr. Rutloff suggested that the encroachment and sidewalk issues be addressed separately. Mr. Tom Hyans, President of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He requested that encroachments be addressed separately from lateral access. Ms. Sidney Bickel, 3801 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that she encroached approximately 1 foot because the ocean removed the original wall. Mr. David Granoff, 7308 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his support of the encroachment. He addressed the amount of time that was spent by the Committee before making an encroachment recommendation. He stated that the beach is not filled on holidays, and the encroachments would not be taking beaches away from the public. Mr. Darwin Pearson, 1249 -1/2 West Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pearson stated that the property owners who have encroached do not want access in front of their property, the proposed $50.00 Encroachment Permit should be increased substantially, the property owners are only trying to increase their property values and they are not concerned with the City's liability, and the sidewalk would prevent further encroachments. Mr. Doug Egland, 6604 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and he stated that the 9 foot encroachment on his property was constructed by a previous owner. Mr. Egland stressed the importance of protecting the beaches, and he addressed the bicycle sign lights that were recently installed in Huntington Beach. Ms. Debbie Evans, 4018 Channel Place, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose an extension of the sidewalk, and she requested that the encroachment and sidewalk be addressed separately. Ms. Evans requested that the beaches remain as they presently exist. -54- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES o'd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Val Scorro, 1601 Bayadere Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission. He suggested that some of the beach be allowed to remain in its pristine state and natural habitat. He opposed the extension of the sidewalk. Ms. Denise Joy, Costa Mesa,. appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the extension of the sidewalk inasmuch as the existing beach is safer. She suggested that the encroachment and sidewalk issues be addressed separately. Ms. Joy stated that the existing encroachments consist mostly of landscaping, and she requested that the property owners be given an opportunity to have an option. Mr. Bill Shonlau, 4809 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He presented a petition consisting of 1226 signatures stating their opposition to the sidewalk extension. * Motion was made and voted on to close the public hearing. yes Won MOTION CARRIED. Motion Commissioner Pers6n made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 1233 and to recommend to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 23 to the Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan, and to modify the Resolution as follows: that the last two paragraphs be deleted and the following language be added: "Private encroachments on to public property or right -of -way shall be eliminated. Furthermore, setbacks on that side of the property shall also be eliminated." In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover and Commissioner Merrill regarding the intent of the motion and zero setbacks, Commissioner Pers6n explained that the basic intent would be that encroachments shall be eliminated and would take away the necessity of the lateral access to the Coastal Commission. Mr. Hewicker indicated there are property owners who have constructed their homes to the 5 foot setback. He said that to eliminate the setback, there would be property owners who would want to add 5 feet out further than their neighbors, and then view blockage would become a problem along the row of houses. -55- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES 0 \CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Di Sano asked what would prevent a property owner from constructing an encroachment on the other side of the sidewalk inasmuch as such encroachments exist on Balboa Peninsula. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Merrill, and Commissioner Di Sano with respect to Commissioner Di Sano's foregoing statement regarding encroachments appearing on the other side of sidewalks. Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that the encroachment issue has not been addressed by the City and public at large. He referred to the difference in beach environment that exists where there is not a boardwalk, and he confirmed the overall beach is not crowded. Substitute Substitute motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1233 and Motion * recommend Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 23 to City Council, and modify the Resolution as follows: eliminate paragraph two of the Resolution "Lateral access shall be provided along the ocean front from the Santa Ana River to the West Jetty of the entrance to Newport Harbor by the extension of the existing • oceanfront walkway. ", and add "Fees generated from said Encroachment Permits shall be used to enhance public access to the beach." Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that he would allow 15 foot encroachments. Commissioner Edwards indicated that the recommended wording in the motion suggests that access is not provided properly to the Amended public. He suggested that the motion be amended to state "Be it Substitute resolved that the City Council shall direct staff to further Motion * investigate beach access." on the basis that if there is sufficient access, the City Council could adopt a policy which might adopt a generation of fee. Following a discussion between Commissioner Edwards, Chairman Debay, and Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the adoption of a fee and restriction of access, Commissioner Edwards suggested eliminating language regarding fees and to amend the motion as follows: Eliminate the last paragraph of Resolution No. 1233 and add one line as follows: "The City Council shall direct staff to further investigate beach access." Commissioner Pomeroy agreed to amend the substitute motion as suggested by Commissioner Edwards. s -56- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES .o 0 �� N$ 0 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Person objected to giving 157,365 square feet of beachfront to the encroachers and taking away from the public. Commissioner Glover stated that the City should not imply that the City is not allowing access to the beach, and she supported the beach as it presently exists. substitute Substitute Substitute motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Substitute 1233, and to amend the Resolution as follows: that there be no Motion encroachments and the existing encroachments be removed within 36 months. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards concerning the 295 homes that do not have a sidewalk, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, replied that if an encroachment is allowed it would be on a permit basis, every home would be affected, and the homes that have encroachments would be required to remove them. Chairman Debay supported the substitute motion, she did not support the original motion or the substitute substitute motion inasmuch as the subject lots are substandard in an older part of town, and from a planning standpoint, the property owners could not predict what would happen in the future. She stated that the recently adopted General Plan encouraged preservation of neighborhoods. Commissioner Di Sano stated that if the Commission is uncertain that the action that is taken shall be held at 295 properties, and other property owners add encroachments, then public access will be further degradated and more people will be applying for encroachments. Discussion followed between Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Di Sano, and Commissioner Merrill regarding the feasibility of an encroachment beyond an existing sidewalk. Ms. Flory suggested that the affect of an encroachment could be addressed by the City Council, and she referred to the Municipal Code which. states "that the Public Works shall issue permits for encroachments which meet specifications published by Public -57- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Works ... and encroachment not to exceed 15 feet from property line or distance to City installed improvements, such as sidewalks, etc." Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Pers6n addressed the effectiveness of an annual encroachment permit that would allow encroachments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Flory concurred that the City may apply conditions on Encroachment Permits. Commissioner Glover stated her . opposition to allowing encroachments until she is assured that the encroachment will represent all oceanfront property owners. Ms. Flory explained that property owners would only be able to encroach up to where there is an existing right -of -way improvement. * * Substitute Substitute motion was voted on to adopt Resolution No. * 1233 and to revise the Resolution as follows: eliminate and remove all encroachments within three years. MOTION DENIED. Commissioner Pers6n opposed the foregoing substitute motion. He stated that he would support a 5 foot encroachment but not a 15 foot encroachment. Substitute motion was voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1233 and Ayes .Noes * * * * revise the Resolution as follows: approve a 15 foot encroachment, delete the second paragraph of the resolution, and add 'Be it resolved that the City Council shall direct staff to further investigate beach access." MOTION DENIED. Motion Commissioner Pers6n withdrew his original motion. Withdrawn Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1233 and revise the Motion * Resolution as follows: approve a 10 foot encroachment, delete the second paragraph of the Resolution, and add 'Be it resolved that the City Council shall direct staff to further investigate beach access." • -58- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Substitute Substitute motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. Notion * 1233 and revise the Resolution as follows: approve a 5 foot encroachment, and incorporate the language that was suggested in Ayes * * * * * * the previous substitute motion, adding '"The City Council shall .Noes direct staff to further investigate beach access." MOTION DENIED. Discussion ensued regarding the number of years that the property owners would be allowed to remove e)dsting encroachments. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that encroachments be removed within 3 years. Ayes * * Motion was voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1233, recommending Noes * * to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 23 to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The Resolution shall be revised as follows: a 10 foot encroachment would be allowed, the second paragraph of the Resolution shall be deleted and add "The City Council shall direct staff to further investigate beach access. ", • and the motion was amended to state that encroachments shall be removed within 3 years. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ITEM: Discussion' Item Amendment No. 714 . No. 1 Request to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport A714 Beach Municipal Code so as to permit clubs in the "Specialty Retail" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific PH Set for Plan Area, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. 8 -23 -90 Notion * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public hearing All Ayes at the September 6, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. -59- COMMISSIONERS August 9, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Di Sano Motion and Commissioner Merrill from the Planning Commission meeting All Ayes of August 23, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 12:30 a.m. Adjourrunent THOMAS EDWARDS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • • -60-