Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/1980 (2)• Motion Ayes Abstain M40 on All Ayes COMMISSIONERS X Xf X XIX REGULAR PLANNING.COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time:. 7:30 p.m. Date: August 21, 1980 ity of Newport Beach All present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: MINUTES William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 1980, as written. X I Motion was made to continue Item Nos. .4, 5, .10 X X and 11 to the Regular Planning.Commission Meeting of September 4, 1980, and to remove Item No. 14 from the calendar. Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro- posed 24,000 sq..ft. + office- retail building, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2912 West Coast Highway, on the .northerly side of West Coast Highway, westerly of Riverside Avenue on Mariners' Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: F. Earl Mellott, A.I.A., Anaheim OWNER: Said Shokrian, Newport Beach INDEX Item #1 TRAFFIC STUDY APPROVED C ISSONERS1 August 21 , 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX AND Request to permit the construction of a three- Item #2 story retail- office complex in the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan Area that exceeds the basic USE PERMIT height limit within the 26/35 Foot Height Limi- NO. 1941 tati.on District. The approval of a use permit is also required inasmuch as the project exceeds DENIED the 0.5 times the buildable area of the site. • L LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2912 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, westerly of Riverside Avenue. ZONE SP -5 APPLICANT: F. Earl Mellott, A.I.A., Anaheim OWNER: Said Shokrian, Newport Beach Agenda Items 1 and 2 were heard concurrently due to 'their relationship. The Public Hearing was opened in conjunction with these items and Mr.. Earl Mellott; representing the owner, appeared before the Commission.. Mr. Mell- ott stated that the plan has been revised slightly subsequent to the previous hearing on this request He stated that they have met the conditions as outlined in the Municipal Code. He also stated that they are proposing to enlarge the building to exceed the .5 times the buildable area and to build three - stories. He also noted that they have cut down 10 feet along the easterly side property Tine, where they would have been able to build legally. Mr. Mellott added that.they feel that a. three -story building will make for a better building in light of the area being considered. Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Mellott if they had:been able to submit a cross section report as requested by staff. Mr. Mellott stated that they have.been trying desperately, but have not been able, as yet, to obtain this. Ms. Pat Strang appeared before the Planning Com- mission on behalf of the Newport Heights Commun- ity Association. She stated that they have re- -2- August 21, 1980 on viewed the tions of th fications h generate an Heights and as set fort Ms. Strang is attached MINUTES revised plans and the original objec- e Association still stand. The modi- ave been minor in that it will still excessive amount of traffic to the they have not met the five criteria h in the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan. added that their letter to this affect to the staff report. Commissioner Balalis asked Ms. Strang if the Association would have any objections to the building being 24,000 square feet. Ms. Strang stated that they feel that an acceptable building could be built at c5 x buildable square.footage to meet the criteria of the Mariners' Plan. We do object to the height of the three - story build- ing and the adverse affect on the public park directly behind the property. Mr. Mellott stated that a traffic study was made • and the number of.cars at a maximum point.going up-Riverside Avenue, would be 12 cars per day. He: also - stated that this' "has been approved and found to be acceptable by the traffic study. There being.no further discussion the following motion was made: Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- Ayes X R X X prove the Traffic Study with the following Abstain. X findings: 1. That a Traffic Study on_the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S -1 and That based on that Traffic Study, a 24,000 square foot commercial project.on the site will neither cause nor make worse an unsatis- factory level of traffic service. on any "major," "primary- modified" or "primary" streets. Commissioner stating that Traffic Study Thomas abstaining from the vote he had not received a copy.of the from the last meeting. -3- INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 August 21, 1980 MINUTES . ZI t Beach INDEX Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission deny All Ayes X X X X X Use Permit No. 1941 as indicated in the Findings in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report as.follows: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. That in exceeding the basic height limit of twenty -six feet, visual access to the bay will be significantly impaired. 2. That the increased building height will re- sult in decreased public visual open space. 3. The increased building height does not re- sult in.a more desirable architectural treat- ment of the building or visual character within the general theme of a marine environ- ment.. 4. That the.increased building height and bulk • would result in abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and_ existing developments. 5. That approval of Use Permit.No. 1941-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 neigh- borhood or be detrimental or.injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.. 6. That no marine- oriented uses are proposed to justify the development to.exceed the .5 time the buildable area on the site. Motion X Motion All Ayes X X X X YX X No. 10 Agenda or his at the was made that Agenda Item #3, Variance 74, be moved to the last item on the in view of the fact that the.applicant representative was not as yet.present: meeting. COMMISSIONERS August 21, 1980 MINUTES City of Newwrt .Beach INDEX Item #6 Request to amend the Land Use and Residential. GENERAL Growth Elements of the General Plan for portions PLAN of the County Territory within the area commonly AMI=NDMENT known as the "County Triangle," generally bounded N0. 80 -2 by Superior Avenue on the east, Production Place on the north and Newport Beach City boundary on APPROVED the west, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Revisions include possible changes in the land use designations.and development in- tensities and are designed as General Plan Amend- ment 80 -2.. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman Haidinger reminded the Commissioners that the.objective of this hearing is to provide the General Plan recommendations necessary for the City Council to determine the.annexation question. He stated that the final decision of annexing this property lies with the City Council The Public Hearing was opened in conjunction with this item and Mr. Earl Lane appeared before the Commission at the request of the mobile home residents. He stated that they favor annexation of the triangle in that the City of Newport Beach could provide better services for the residents of the park. He stated that if a mobile home park was built with 14 -foot wide coaches and proper setbacks, there could be a maximum of 17 coaches per acre. He also stated that the resi- dents would like to.see a permanent zoning on this property to allow a mobile home park use. Ms..Elizabeth.Ann Hess., representing.herself, Mr. Ronald Dick and three neighboring families, appeared before the Commission. She stated that during the past few years, multiple- family resi- dential zoning has been dramatically reduced in this.County triangle; starting in 1976 which -5 uvu»�vov August. 21, 1980 Citv of Newport Beach MINUTES allowed 40 units per acre, being again reduced in 1977, and now a. reduction to 20 units per acre She stated that the people of this area have given up alot in the past four and a half years, but that they are willing to accept 20 units per acre. She also stated that they are not willing to accept anything less than this proposal. Ms. Hess then urged the Commission to approve the staff recommendation. Mr..Do:n Bendetti, a partner in the Newport Ter- race Mobile Home Park, appeared before the Com- mission. Mr. Bendetti stated that he .appeared before the Commission at their July 24th meeting regarding the.annexation.of this.County. .triangle: He stated that they wish to reiterate their de- sire for the Commission to recommend the staffs development.alternative No. 7, which is the trend growth concept without the mobile home park pre- servation. He stated that preservation -of the • mobi.le home park would not be feasible consider- ing the age, obsolesence.and negative density. He stated that they.would like to have the right to redevelop in the future. He also stated that they realized that any redevelopment would have t meet.the requirements of the General Plan and assumed that any approval would be for the pre- sense of low to. moderate priced housing. Mr. Bendetti stated that they also recognized that they would have to plan for any displacement or hardship that may occur from the redevelopment. • Mr. Dick Hogan, a Planning Consultant from New - port Beach „appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hogan stated that he is concerned with the pro- perty owners who have their:property under devel- opment or, have made an application to the County for development in this County triangle. He handed-to. the- Commission %cop.ies 'of his proposed language for the General Plan Amendment which in essence, proposes that the actions of the County would be accepted by the City.regarding these on =going..developments. He stated that the property owners that he represents have. all pro- ceeded with their applications to the County. COMMISSIONERS August 21, 1980 . g City of Newport Beach MINUTES M ROLLCALL1111 Jill I INDEX Mr. Hogan stated that he hopes that the construc- tion phase can begin before the annexation be- comes effective. But, he stated that this may not be possible on all the applications, in that some of the applications may be in the process of hearings before the County Planning Commission Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Hogan the total number of dwelling units he was refe.rring.to. Mr. Hogan stated.that four projects would fall under this waiver; one project consisting of 29 units; a second project of 22 units; a third of 9 units; and, a fourth of 8 units. Commissioner Thomas. asked the Assistant City Attorney if these projects that had already paid their building permit fees have vested rights without the benefit of this waiver. Mr. Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the projects.under construction would certainly be vested and those which have bu- ilding permits would also be vested. But,.he stated that those in the hearing process would probably not be vested. Mr. Hogan stated that this is the reason.for his request. He stated that in similar cases which he is familiar with, wherein'a building permit has been taken out with the County, the City.has then required the applicant to apply for another permit. Thus, . ..the applicant has had to pay two building permit fees. He stated that this a problem between the County "and the City where the applicant becomes caught in the middle. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Burnham to explain the laws established with this regard. Mr. Burnham stated that with respect to annexation, he did not know, but that generally when con- struction has.commenced, the property owner then has vested rights. He stated that it also de- pends on'where the property owner lies in the series of discretionary permits as to whether or.not the property rights are vested. Mr. Burnham stated that the language that Mr. Hogan • `submitted allows for the creation of a large loop- hole.. -7- COMMISSIONERS August 21 , 1480 MINUTES .+ A 9 Z • INDEX Mr. Burnham stated that.in his opinion, this issue would be best left to be determined by legal precedent rather than trying to insert language into the General Plan. Mr. Hogan stated that he had requested the City Attorney's Office to.research this particular question, as to whether the City could adopt a provision of this nature. He stated that if a property owner was proceeding within the Ordi- nances and provisions of the County, it would be only reasonable for the City to recognize this timely -and costly procedure. Commissioner Beek stated that by the time this case is heard by the City Council, he would hope that a• researched report prepared by,the City` Attorney's Office would explain the implications. At this time, a lengthy discussion began on the • subject on vested property rights. Commissioner Balalis stated that he. -was ih agreeiaent with. some of Mr..Hogan's comments. Chairman Haidinger stated that a barrier would have to be set so as to not create a loop: - hole; such-.as what needs to occur by a certain date. Mr. Burnham stated that the Commission may not want to take over the pro- blems of another governmental agency by setting this precedent. Planning Director Hewicker stated that after the property is.annexed, it would come into the.City unclassified and then it would just be a matter of the applicant applying for a use permit which would be quicker than waiting for the.zoning to take effect. Commissioner Balalis stated that he does not want to see an applicant have to apply for use permit twice. Chairman Haidinger asked to staff to explain the provision of the mobile home overl.ay zone. Planning Director Hewicker stated that at the request of the Commission this provi,s:ion was pre- pared to provide for the continuation of the mobile home park. In the event there would be some change to the mobile home use, this would be Im COMMISSIONERS August 21, 1980 MINUTES 1 0 a discretionary review required by the City. Mr. Hewicker also stated that this not only provides protection to the residents of the mobile home, but also provides the.opportunity to the:owner for possible redevelopment. Mr. Burnham,.Assistant City Attorney, stated that he would like to be granted additional time to prepare a report answering the questions raised by the Commission's discussion tonight. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the Commissio approve the General Plan Amendment and that the report by the City Attorney's Office be forwarded to the. City Council for their review and action. Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1054 , approving.amendments to the Land Use and Resi- dential Growth Elements and Maps of the Newport Beach General Plan and accept the Environmental . Documentation with the following findings: FINDINGS: That an Initial. Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality.Act, and that their contents have been.consi- dered in the decisions on this project; and That.based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project in- corporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially- significant environ- mental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Commissioner McLaughlin asked sta.ff if is nec- essary at this time to.adopt the mobile home park overlay zoning. Planning Director Hewicker state that in the event the City Council approves the General Plan Amendment and the annexati.on occurs, we would then come back to implement the contents of this report. He stated that this motion M 11VIU)KANEK.3 August 21, 1980 City of Newport Beach MINUTES implies that there will be a mobile home overlay zone.. Commissioner Allen stated that she.is concerned with the.precedent setting nature of approving 20 dwelling units per acre, when our current General Plan has a- maximum ceiling of 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Planning Director Hewicker directed the Commissio to Page 2 and 3 of th.e Staff Report; specifically the language under.the Land Use Element and Resi- dential Growth Element.. Commissioner Allen stated that she was aware of this, but that she would like to stet this specific area apart from the rest of the City in terms of "policy" in the number of dwelling units allowed.. She stated that they will be violating their policy when the annexation occurs. Planning Director Hewicker read an excerpt from the General City Wide Residential Zoning Policy, Residential Growth Element as follows; "All future residential development shall be limited to a density not greater than 15 dwelling units per buildable acre on any indi- vidual. project ex- cept where special provisions have been made with in this element for higher density." He stated that this policy would be applicable to the County Triangle. Mr. Hewicker.stated that this County Triangle.is a County Island completely sur rounded by the City of Newport Beach.. He stated that it makes good planning sense for the City of Newport Beach to annex this area so as to offer our planning services and bring this area more in line with the City efforts. Commissioner Allen stated that she would still like to adopt language that would set this area apart, not only geographically, but in terms of the particular nature in allowing this density. Amendment Commissioner Thomas suggested an amendment of an additional finding stating that due to historical precedence and established land use patterns in • this County Island, we find that while the den - sity, is over the generally allowed.density limit, -10- August 21, 1,980 City of Newport Beach it -is in the best interest of the City to annex this parcel. Commissioner McLaughlin accepted the.amendment to her motion. All Ayes X X X YX X X After further discussion, Commissioner McLaugh- lin's amended motion was then voted on and approved unanimously. . MINUTES The Planning. Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened.at 9:00 p.m. Motion X Motion was made to move Item No. 7 to follow the last item on the Agenda. Amendment X Amended motion was made by Commissioner Balalis to read that Item No. 7 will be heard no later than 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Thomas accepted the amended motion. A X X X Y X X Amended motion was then voted on, which motion N X carried. Request to permi.t the.construction of a two -story two -unit residential condominium and related gar- age spaces in the R -2 District. , mil Request to establish one parcel of land so as to permit the construction of a two unit condominium project on the property. LOCATION: ZONE: APPLICANT: • I I I I I I I I ARCHITECT: The.easterly 100 feet of Lot 4, Block F, Tract 27, located at 3227 Clay Street on the westerly side of Clay Street between Bolsa Avenue and Westminster Avenue in Newport Heights. R -2 Malcolm Davy and Thomas Walker, Costa Mesa Same J. Ward Dawson, Tustin -11- Item #8 USE PERMIT APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Item #9 RESUB- D'171SION NO. 663 ADVPnvrn CONDI- TIONALLY August 21, 1980 0 MINUTES Agenda Items 8 and 9 were heard concurrently due to their.relationship. The public hearing was.opened in connection with these items and Mr. Malcolm oavy,.applicant .ap- peared before the Planning Commission and advised that he was in concurrence with the staff report. Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Davy if.he wasi agreement to provide a fully enclosed garage. Mr. Davy stated that.they.originally proposed a car - port and an enclosed garage for aesthetic reasons only. He stated that they will now agree to the two fully enclosed garage spaces. INDEX Commissioner Beek advised Mr. Davy that the City has just approved a new Residential Parking Or- dinance which permits the garages to be somewhat narrower that in the past, therby having more space in the side yard to utilize. Sion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission .Ayes X X X approve Use Permit No. 1945 and Resubdivision. Abstain X No. 663 with the following findings and conditions: Use Permit No. 1945 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been.de- signed as:a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project complies with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning. Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the.a.dopted . goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential con- dominium development. -12- COMMISSIONERS1 August 21, 1980 MINUTES �_ -9 .10 of Newport Beach INDEX 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such .proposed use or be detrimental or in -. jurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare-of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in Condition No. 2. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each.dwelling unit. Said.garage spaces shall. • have side walls, roofs, and operating garage doors for access of automobiles. 3. That all conditions of resubdivision No. 663 shall be fulfilled. Resubdivision No. 663 FINDINGS:" 1, That the map meets the req °uirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific.plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by Ordinance and the Public Works • Department. . -13- COMMISSICINERS 1 • • August 21, 1980 of Newport Beach 3. That all. improvements along the Clay Street frontage be completed. These improvements are to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement. All these improvements are to be done under an Encroachment Permit. The design plans will be prepared by the Public Works Department. MINUTES 4. That each unit shall have individual water and sewer services unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety.by provided if it is de- sired to record the parcel map prior to com- pletion of the public improvements. 6. That the street improvements be designed by the City of Newport Beach. Request to permit the installation of outdoor lighting on 20 foot standards in conjunction with a paddle tennis court on the property.. LOCATION: Lot 43, Tract 6228, located at 3449 Quiet Cove, at the southeasterly end of Quiet Cove, southerly of Tiller Way in Harbor View Hills. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: Jeffrey Matsen, Newport Beach OWNER: Same The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jeffrey Matsen, applicant, ap- peared before the Commission. Mr. Matsen stated that since the issuance of the Staff Report, he has obtained the approval of the Homeowner's Association. He stated that due to an admini_ . stration problem at the management office, .prior approval was not granted. He also stated that the Architectural Committee visited the property and is now approving the fencing and lighting. d[M Item #12 APPROVED CONDI- T�N —LLY 0 Motion All Ayes 9 X August 21, 1980 S] Mr. Matsen approval in recommended rather than MINUTES i9 1 stated that he has received their writing. He also stated that they Approval of the lighting at 16 feet, 20 feet. Chairman Hai.dinger stated that he visited the site and suggested that the lighting at 15 feet may be appropriate. Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Matsen the height of the existing shrubbery on his lot and the upper lot. Mr. Matsen stated that the Homeowner's Association had measured at the lowest possible view level on the upper lot and determined that 16 feet would be appro- priate, also taking into consideration that two of the light standards will be blocked by the shrubbery completely. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Matsen to explain the vinyl coating to be used on the chain•link.fence as.suggested by the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Matsen stated that the vinyl coating makes the fence much less obtrusive and aesthetically pleasing, He stated that it is not a wind screen. Mr. Norman Sanders, contractor for the applicant, stated that they will be utilizing a vinyl dipped fence rather than the standard galvanized fence. Commissioner Allen asked staff if the motion should include a provision for the fence Planning Director Hewlicker stated that the use permit is a request for lighting, but that the Commission can add any condition they desire which would make the facility more compatible wit the area. Mr. Matsen stated that he was in agree ment with fence provision. Motion was made that the Planning Commission-ap- prove Use Permit No. 1947 with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1.. That.the proposed use in consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is Compatible with surrounding land uses. 2 The project will not have any significant environmental impacts. -15- INDEX COMMISSION August 21, 1980 MINUTES i 91 Beach 3. That the proposed illumination will be.in- stalled in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light sp.illage and glare to the adjoining residential pro- perties. 4. That the proposed ligh.t standards in:the 6 foot side yard setback will not interfere with ocean views from adjoining residential pro- perty. Furthermore, said light standards will not be anymore detrimental to adjoining pro - perty than if the light standards were in- stalled within the buildable area of the pro- perty. 5. That the establishment of the light standards will not exceed 16 feet in height.in the 6 foot side yard setback and will not, under the.circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort'and general welfare of persons re- siding or working in the , neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or in- jurious to property and improvements in .the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifi- cation is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 6. The.approval of Use Permit No. 1947 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons re- siding and working in.the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to. property or im- provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1 That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan; except ..as noted in Condition of Approval. No. 5. 2. That the lighting system shall -be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal • the light source and to minimize light spill- -16- COMMISSIONERS1 . August 21, 1980 MINUTES M myog r� INDEX age and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer;.wi.th a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the lights shal.l.be.turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. 4. That the provision for vinyl.coating the.fenc be consistent with the request of the Home Owner's Association. 5. That the light standards in the required 6 fo t side yard setback shall not exceed 16 feet in height. Request to permit the construction of a single- Item #13 family dwelling in the R -3 District, which pro - vides only two (2) off - street parking spaces VARIANCE where the Code requires three (3) spaces. Said N application further requests to provide less than the required open space on the property. APPROVED LOCATION: Lot 15, Block 10, East Newport, CONDI- located at 106 6th Street, on the TIONALLY easterly side of 6th Street, between West Balboa Boulevard and West Ocean Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Ficker & Ruffing Architects, Newport Beach OWNER: Peter C. Reid, Balboa Island Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Open Space Option Requirement is a volume of space equal to'the buildable width of the .lot times the basic height limit times six feet. He stated that it places a much la.rger.restriction on the size of a dwelling you can put on a shallow lot, as opposed to the size of a structure that can be put on a longer lot. He also added that the Stafi has recommended denial of this request. • -17- COMMISSIONERSI August 21, 1980 City of Newport Beach MINUTES The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bill Ficker, the architect, ap- peared before the Commission. Mr. Ficker stated that they are not in agreement with the Staff report's interpretation of the open space require- ment and parking. He stated that perhaps they should not be here for a Variance, but rather a Modification. He also stated th.at they have tr.ied.to-design a home which would respond archi- tecturally to the community and be. - comfortable to the owner. At this time, Mr. Ficker delivered a slide pre - sentation which depicted the site, its surrounding area and homes, maps of the open space and volume concept, a plan of the proposed home including garage space, and numerous slides of neighboring homes with respect to their garages and parking problems. Mr. Ficker stated that they are proposing a full 24 foot wide garage so that realistically the. owner can have work space and storage space along with the cars. He added that the minimum 18 foot wide garages are too narrow and inadequate, and in fact, many of the owners only end up storing one car in the garage and one car outside. He stated that they have proposed to setback the house 7 1 /2'feet from the alley, thereby providing additional parking only if needed. He stated that the intent of the City`is to keep cars out.of the setback areas, but that it is clearly evident that the resi -dents of Newport Beach do park in these areas. Mr: .Ficker added that he would.hope that the Commiss.ion grant approval of this Varianc as outlined in Exhibit C of the Staff report. . Commissioner Beek stated that the City has just passed a new Residential Parking Ordinance which provides for a 25 square foot trash storage room at the rear of the property, which does not have to be. counted in the floor area of the building. It.also provides for the garage to be off -set and the side carport can be wider. He also stated that the Code now permits a reasonable way to pro.vide for three cars across the .rear of the property. Wo COMMISSIONERS August 21 , 1980 1 p of New ort .Beach MINUTES Mr. Ficker responded that they have realistically tried to provide a better architectural design for the community. He added that the off -sets and substandard garages do not serve the property . owner or neighborhood well. Commissioner Beek stated that he is not convinced of Mr. Ficker's argument that work space is neede in the 24 foot garage, when a basement is being proposed. Planning Director Hewicker pointed out that the Regulations have three sets of criteria to calcu- late open space. The first set of criteria being lots on the ocean front, or permanent open space; the second set being lots in.the R -1, R -3 and R -4 district; and, the third set being lots in the R -2 district. He stated that the case being con- sidered is in the R -3 district; and chances are if the criteria of the other open space require- . merits were applied to this case, it would come very close to compliance He added that it would be very helpful to have only one rule that was applied uniformly, but we do not. Commissioner Balalis.stated that he was in.agree- ment with certain aspects of Mr. Ficker's pre- sentation. He.stated that the open space option should be waived in this case as 6th Street is large enough and the parking lot to the rear offers another public vista. However, he stated that he.would not-approve a Variance on the park- ing because he feels that three.parkieo. spaces across the rear.will be useab.l.e.si:nce the appli- cant is proposing a basement. The three. parking spaces in the rear offers a more workable solu- tion that what the applicant proposes. Commissioner Allen asked staff that by counting the open space on the.rear.of the applicants property and adding this to the open space he is already providing, does he then comply with the open space requirement. Mr. Laycoc.k, Current Planning Administrator.,'stated.that this would not meet the open space requirement in that the • interpretation of the Commission has been a 6 foo -19- C MISSIONERS1 August 21, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport .Beach ROLL CALL INDEX setback.in every direction,,which the applicant does not meet. The area is triangular in shape as opposed to being square or rectangular. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap -. prove a_ portion of Variance No. 1077; granting the waiver of a portion of the open.space option with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application as it pertains to the.provision of open space, whit circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, and /or uses in the same district. 2. That the .granting of a variance to the open • space requirement is necessary for the pre- servation and enjoyment of substantial pro - perty rights of the applicant, inasmuch as adequate.open space is being provided on the property. 3. That the establishment, maintenance; and oper ation.of the use, property, and building, without the required open space will not, under.the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed.use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor - hood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That there are no exceptional and extraordin- ary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this applicatio as it pertains to provision of off- street parking, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, .and /or uses in the.same district.. I I I I I I I 15. That the granting of a variance to the parki requirement is not necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property =20- I I 111, August.21, 1980 Z) Beach MINUTES rights of the applicant inasmuch as other single family dwellings in excess of 2000 square feet of living space have provided the third required parking spaces on 30 foot wide lots. That the establishment, maintenance, and oper ation of the use of the property and building with only two off - street parking spaces will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of per- sons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or in jurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1 That development shall be in substantial con - formance.with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations except as otherwise provided below. 2. The applicant shall redesign his project so :as to provide three off - street parking spaces a.s required by Section 20.11.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That all vehicular access to the property shall be restricted to the alley only. Commissioner Beek stated that he would like to make it clear that by granting this variance, we are granting an exception to the applicant to build without meeting the open space requirement Commissioner.Beek then asked Commissioner Balalis if the intent of his motion was to imply that thi would be complying with the Ordinance. Commis.- sinner Balalis stated that this was correct. Commissioner Beek stated that this simply was not true and that he, in no way, could support the motion. I I ( I I (Commissioner Thomas stated that he can not sup- port a motion which does not address the three criteria of a Variance. -21- August 21, 1980 City of Newport Beach Ayes JXJXJ X JX JJ Commissioner Balalis motion to approve a portion Noes X X of Variance No. 1077; granting the waiver of a portion of the open space option was then voted on, which motion carried.. Chairman Haidinger..stated that he would like_ to clarify the motion made in Item.No. 13 of the Agenda. He stated that Variance No. 1077 was approved with the:findings and condition's of Exhibit B in the staff report. Those findings state that there are exceptional circumstances and therefore, we are granting a.Variance from the open.space requirement and not stating that the .property meets the requirements Chairman Haidinger stated that he hoped that this would satisfy the concerns of the Commissioners.voti.ng No on this particular case. MINUTES Request to permit the installation of a radio Antenna and tower that exceed the basic height . limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Dis- trict. The maximum.height of the proposed ex- pandable structure will be sixty -five feet t above grade when in use and reduced in height to twenty -seven feet ± above grade when not being. utilized. LOCATION: Lot 93, Tract No. 1140, located at 2461 Crestview Drive on the westerly side of Crestview Drive southerly of Marino Drive in Bayshores. ZONE: R -1 INDEX Item # VARIANCE I Nb. 10 APPLICANT: Edward Karagozian, Newport Beach OWNERS: Edward and Elizabeth Karagozian, Newport Beach i The continued public hearing was open in connec- tion with this item and Mr. Fred Lawson, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Commissioner McLaughlin asked staff if the appli- cant'had submitted any of the information as re- quested by the Planning Commission at the last. meeting. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the information requested by the Commission has not been_reeeived by the Department. -22- August 21, 1980 IfinallCitv of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Lawson stated that `substantial material had been hand delivered to Mr. Burnham of the City Attorney's Office with the promise that it.would be submitted to the Commission: This material included information. relative to the limitions . on range and reception, data, diagrams and bro- chures on the tower to be.utilized He stated that they have complied with the requests of the Commission. Mr. Lawson stated that he would like to address the issue of electrical and radio fre- quency interference relating to this request. Mr. Lawson stated that the height the Variance allows for would minimize any radio frequency interference. He stated that material from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) shows that a low antenna, less than 40 feet, is more likely to cause and increase interference than the 65 "foot height request by the applicant. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Lawson to explain ._ the type of antenna being used and the distance: it can transmit and receive. Mr. Lawson stated that this was part of the information submitted. to the City Attorney. Mr. Lawson went into great detail to explain the height above ground of an antenna and the effective range of communication. He stated that at the height of 66 feet, the communication possible on 40 meters is 2,500 miles, or roughly that of the Continental United States. He added that less than 66 feet, or be- neath one -half of a wave length, the effective field range decreases - dramatically. Mr. Lawson stated that the applicant is requesting 65 feet to exercise his federal license with functional utility.: He added that anything less than.this would cut, into the effective use of the field. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated. that some technical information was submitted to his office by the applicant, but as he understood it the Commission at their last meeting had requeste information be submitted in layman terms. Mr. Burnham stated that he would like to know if Mr. Karagozian is presently operating radio equipment and if so, the size and range of the antenna. Also, the effect of the bands, decibel -5 and. pdwer of the equipment. Mr..Burnh.am also made refer- -23- August 21, 1980 5n Beach MINUTES ence.to the fact that Mr. Lawson has represented cases concerning radio antenna heights, including the lawsuit against the City of Placentia. Mr. Lawson stated that Mr. Karagoiian is not operating any equipment at the present time. Mr.. Lawson illustrated a simple antenna on the black- board, similar to the type that would be used by the applicant. He also explained how radio sig- nals are transmitted, received and absorbed. Commissioner Thomas asked legal counsel to explai the applicants legal rights.i.n.a case of this nature. Mr. Burnham referred.to the memo from th City Attorney's Office. He stated that the First Amendment argument is considered to be the most valid argument raised by Mr. Lawson in the Platen tia case. The Federal.Court Judge found that be- cause there was no functional use of utility in the case,.the radio operator.was deprived of the First Amendment rights. He added that under thes circumstances, the burden of proof is reversed, and the local agency must demonstrate a compellin interest as to why the regulation is valid. Mr. Burnham stated that this argument involving publi agencies and radio antenna heights does not have alot of legal precedence. He then made reference to the City of Cerritos and City of Placentia court cases. Commissioner Beek stated that the applicant has chosen to make his home near.a bluff, thereby making communications difficult. , Commissioner Beek asked legal counsel wh.o will have to bear the burden of this unfortunate decision. Mr. Burnham stated that he did not.know what impact the geographical statutes have on the legality of the local agency 'in regulating the antenna height,. Mr. Burnham added that if the First Amendment argument is not accepted by the court in this case, the applicant must show that he is in compliance with the provisions of the Variance being applied for. He also added that there would not be a significance to the geographical factor, other than it apparently impacts on what he can do with his radio equipment. • -24- COMMISSIONERS • August 21, 1980 Me Beach MINUTES Commissioner Cokas asked legal counsel to explair the legal role of the FCC in this case. Mr. Burr ham stated that an act•of Congress, gave the FC.0 the ability to regulate.these communications. Th FCC has the ability to regulate power, frequency, and many other aspects of radio communications. Chairman Haidinger.called for opposition from the audience, none was present. Motion X Motion was made that the..Pla.nning Commission deny Variance No. 1074 subject to.Exhibit A of the staff report with the following findings for. denial: • 9 FINDINGS: That, by virtue of the subject property's proximity to the Coastal Bluffs, a tall an tenna is necessary for improving radio.and, television reception. However, the proposed antenna and tower is considerably taller and visually more obtrusive than any -other simila structure: existing in the vicinity. . That by denying this owner will not.suffer or property rights. narrower antenna, the joy benefits similar residences. request, the property any loss of enjoyment By constructing :a s.horte property owner will en- to that of adjacent That there are no exceptional or extraordina 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 Bayshores. 4. That the proposed antenna and tower will unde the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect - adversely the health or, safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will under the circumstances of the par -. titular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to. property or improvements in the neighborhood. -25- INDEX 4MISSIONERS August 21, 1980 iI I I I L p City of Newport Beach MINUTES I I I I I I I R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Ayes Noes Commissioner Beek stated that-he is also con- cerned with existing height violations of other antennas in the neighborhood. Mr. Burnham stated that roof -top appliances in the vicinity measure an average of 40 to 45 feet in height from ground level. Mr. Burnham stated that the height of other roof -top appliances is important, because this particular structure as requested will excee the existing level of similar appliances by appro imately 20 feet, and it will also have three to four 24 foot horizontal members. He also stated that this particular structure will have an aesthetic impact on the neigh:borhood which should be included in the findings for denial of this case. X X X X X Chairman Haidinger's motion for denial of Variance X No. 1074 was then voted on, which motion carried. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:25 p.m and.reconvened at 10:35 p.m. Consideration of proposed Land Use Plan and Development Policies for the Local Coastal Program. (Continued Public Hearing) INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach. -26- Item #7 LOCAL COASTAL PR GRAM Continued to Septem- ber 4, . 1980 at 2:00 p.m. 0 n LJ 4MISSIONERS August 21, 1980 MINUTES S City of Newport Beach INDEX SHUTTLE BUS SYSTEM The continued puDlic nearing was opened in connec- SHUTTLE tion with the Local Coastal Program. Chairman BUS Haidinger.asked for comments on the shuttle bus SYSTEM. Isystem.: Mr. Bill Frederickson of Balboa, appeared before. the Commission in suppor't.of the consideration of a shuttle bus system as described in Item No. 6 of the Staff report, a and b. He stated that further study of this issue will prove that it is.wise.to support this issue. Commissioner Thomas asked how the existing shuttl, approved for Newport Center, will.be interfaced with these proposed shuttles. He stated that he would like to know the potential of integrating these systems together. Commissioner Thomas also. asked.a.bout the funds set aside .in the mass trans sit fund. Planning Director Hewicker stated that these funds for transportation purposes are not necessarily earmarked for shuttle bus systems. Commissioner Allen stated that it is.possible Com sioner Thomas is referring to the shuttle bus condition-of Corporate Plaza which is part of the Newport Center Transit Study. She.stated.that $300,000 has been.bonded by the Irvine Company for this shuttle bus system. She stated.that . Possibly wording should be included to tie this system into the already existing and operating. system.which is presently being grossly under utilized, and.to.coordinate with—the systems we are now proposing to consider. Chairman Haidinger suggested wording to the nature that.the City shall consider provision of a shuttle bus system to operate within the City boundary compatible with other.existing or planned City transit systems.. s- Commissioner Thomas stated that the Commission should be more specific in working with the system we already have. He stated that this is an ideal time to coordinate the shuttle recommendations with the hotel services and access to the Downcoas Park. He also stated that possibly this.should be e- -27- August 21, 1980 MINUTES Additional Additional Amendment was made to.the. motion that Amendment X consideration should be given to limiting or re- stricting.access to the Peninsula for the sake. of directing the public to achieve its access to the beach via the shuttle bus system; providing - revenues to s- upport the s_huttle.bus..system.. either through entrance fees or parking.fees; and,-to increase public safety-by-reducing vehicular use of the .Peninsula. Acceptance Chairman Hai.dinger accepted the additional amend- ment to his motion. Alves X X X X X Chairman Haidinger's amended motion was then _jjjjjjjj voted on and approved unanimously. .28_ I City P of New ort .Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ferred back to staff to consider more definitive proposals. Commissioner Balalis stated that it may be easier to establish a plan now, rather tha referring it back to staff. Motion Y Motion was made that the City shall develop a municipal transit plan for transportation within the City boundaries. Specific areas to be con - sidered include utilization of existing remote parking (of offices and businesses).on the week- ends with tram service.into the beach and bay areas; as well as place -to -place shuttle system. Amendment X Amended motion was made that the specific areas to be serviced be as follows: 1) Corona del Mar State Beach and surrounding area, from the existing terminal point at the Bank of Newport; 2) Transportation.service between Newport Center and the shopping on the Peninsula Lido Village /McFadden Square; and 3) Shuttle along Balboa Peninsula using the potential RV parking. Acceptance X Chairman Haidinger accepted the amendment to his motion. Commissioner Allen stated that staff should begin at the starting.point of the existing transit study and shuttle bus study. Additional Additional Amendment was made to.the. motion that Amendment X consideration should be given to limiting or re- stricting.access to the Peninsula for the sake. of directing the public to achieve its access to the beach via the shuttle bus system; providing - revenues to s- upport the s_huttle.bus..system.. either through entrance fees or parking.fees; and,-to increase public safety-by-reducing vehicular use of the .Peninsula. Acceptance Chairman Hai.dinger accepted the additional amend- ment to his motion. Alves X X X X X Chairman Haidinger's amended motion was then _jjjjjjjj voted on and approved unanimously. .28_ ,Xll August 21, 1980 22 t Beach B ICYCLE TRAILS SYSTEM Motion X moti on was made ementation the City's age cycling on. MINUTES that the City shall insure the . of a bikeway system in accordance Master Plan of Bikeways to en- as an alternate mode.of transpor.- Commissioner Allen expressed her concern on safety on some of the bikeways shown on the Maste Plan. Mr. Bob Lenard, Advance Planning.Admini- strator, stated that the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Comm.ittee's concern was on the existing beach front sidewalks and conflicts between pede- strians and - bicyclists. The Committee did want to support bycycling in.general, but-they did not want to support this particular plan as they felt it may represent a safety hazard. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer stated that • the current master plan does not show a master plan route along the ocean front sidewalk. At the time of its adoption, it was recognized that there was already an existing route subject to bicycle use. All Ayes X X X X X Commissioner Cokas motion was then voted on and approved unanimously. PARKING Commissioner Thomas suggested that the parking issue be postponed until the next meeting for more specific proposals from the staff. Commissioner Balalis •stated that in view of our recommendation of a shuttle..system, we should tak a harder look at the parking propos.als. He sug- gested that -consideration should. be given to. the RV parking lot or possibly parking at th_e_0range County Fairgrounds- and' - Newport Center. Commission Thomas added that pool management parking should be considered on the weekends and.revamping the in -lieu parking. • IIIIIIII -29- I BICYCLE TRAILS SYSTEM PARKING CUMM1551UNER5 August 21, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Bill Frederickson, Chairman of the Central Newport Parking Committee, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Frederickson stated that rather than making specific parking requirements in the Local Coastal Plan, only the general need for parking should be stressed at this point. He stated that after the Plan i.s adopted, then the specific needs could be studied and planned for the different areas in question. Commissioner Thomas stated that the Local Coastal Plan can become our plan to solve these problems. Mr. Bill Ficker appeared before. the Commission and strongly encouraged the Commission to tie the shuttle bus system and parking proposals together He also stated that he would encourage new parkin lots outside of the coastal zone, and discourage parking lots developing within the zone. MotionX Motion was made that the parking issue. be postpone . until the next meeting for more specific language .from the staff on the suggestions outlined by the Commission-in their discussion. A11.Ayes JXJX 0 Commissioner Balalis stated that.at the same time he would like to discourage the automobile traffic from coming down through the Peninsula and back out of the Peninsula looking for parki.ng, rather than using the shuttle system. Perhaps we should use stronger language to say that the City shall discourage vehicular access to the .Peninsula. Commissioner Thomas suggested that an increase in public access. via public transit be matched with a. decrease= in:parking-availabili-ty in_ congested areas. Commissioner Cokas stated that advertising should be part of the recommendation to be 'considered by staff, along with the examination of the recom- mendations of the Central Newport Parking Committee. XIXIXi Motion. made by..Commissioner Thomas was then voted on and approved unanimously. -30- COMMISSIONERS I August 21, 1980 MINUTES w y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX BOAT LAUNCHING RAMP BOAT Commissioner Beek stated that the mouth of the LAUNCHING Santa Ana River would be a prime location for a RAMP small boat launching ramp. He stated that the highways are easily accessible and it is right on the Ocean:. Mr. Webb, Assistant City Engineer, suggested that the wording be changed from "boat launching ramp" to "boat launching facility ". He stated that by doing so would allow for a ramp or a crane operati n. Motion X Motion was made that the Commission add the Santa All Ayes XK X X X X Ana Rivermouth Boat Launching Facility to the draft Local Coastal Program recommendation. Commissioner Allen asked staff where the people util.izing the boat launching area will park. Mr. Lenard stated that with the redesign of the bridge there will be parking at the previous launching si e. Motion Y Motion was made for the adoption of the boat launc ing All Ayes XK X X X YX facility as recommended in the draft LCP. PUBLIC PROPERTY LEASEHOLDS PUBLIC Commissioner Thomas stated that the situation now., PROPERTY LEASE - is essentially that a large number of public pro - HOLDS perties have been:leased for private use either City fee land or City tidelands. He suggested tha a fair market rent system be proposed for the land that are currently leased. These funds should the be set aside for the acquisition of equal or bette quality public land adjacent to the waterfront in other portions of the City, especially those which may be considered environmentally sensitive habita s, such as-Inspiration Point, Castaways, ocean front lots and Westbay property... This would allow the individuals who are currently leasing City propert es their continued use, and at the same time provide the public and the residents of the City with a mitigation.of equally valuable waterfront land and access. Mr. Robert Bergon, President of Marinapark Homeown rs Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Bergon stated that their letter of July 21st outli es their request that the Marinapark.Mobile Home Park remain in existence, rather than being phased out as proposed in the draft of the LCP. He stated • that a major portion of the park complex is alread devoted to recreation. Also, there are very few mobile home parks in the City; by phasing this out 58 relatively affordable homes would be sacrificie . -31- . August 21, 1980 m r r'. MINUTES in summation, Mr. Bergon stated that it does not make sense to replace a steady, revenue producing crime -free mobile home park with an expensive, traffic generating, public area on the Balboa Peninsula. INDEX Chairman Haidinger stated that at this time the public hearing, Would be open for anyone wishing to speak on the Lido Isle Beach Leases. LIDO ISLE.BEACH LEASES Mr. Bob.Sanche, member of the Board of the Lido Isle Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sanche stated that he has pre- LIDO ISLE BE1TH LEASES pared a letter for the Commission on the lease issue, and that it may be wise for the.Commission to defer consideration on same until the next meeting. Mr. 'Sanche stated that the initial lease price was established by an appraisal and is re -: :evaluated at 5 year intervals. Chairman Haidinger -asked legal counsel, in view of Commissioner Thomas suggestion, can these leases be renegotiated or not. Mr. Burhnam state that this particular lease could not be renegoti- ated without the consent.of both parties. He also stated that this would be true with the majority of the other leases. Mr. Burnham stated that due to the complexity of this issue, a full staff re- port will be prepared for the next hearing. Mr. Sanche stated that he would appreciate if this public hearing could be continued to another night hearing, so that he may attend. Mr. Don Atkinson, attorney, directed the Commis - sion to Page 24 of the staff report, Ltem K. Mr. Atkinson stated that his client, Mr. William J. Cagney,has 32 years remaining on his lease. He stated that his lease does not have alot of po- tential for Recreational. and Environmental Open Space. He also stated that there is an appa•re.nt misconception that this.-is public owned property. Mr. Lenard - stated that staff was under the im- pression that this was a City owned parcel. He also.stated that this matter will be rectified for the next meeting. -32- COMMISSIONERS Fliwi August. 21, 1980 so Beach MINUTES IMr. Tony Turner of Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission and stated that he will save his testimony for the next hearing on this subject. At this time, the Commission discussed the re- scheduling of this continued public hearing. Commissioner Balalis stated that he may.not be able to attend a- study session in the afternoon on September 4th, but he would be at the night meeting. Commissioner Allen stated that she may not be able to attend the evening meeting on September 4th. Motion X Motion was made to continue this public hearing Ayes X X XX X X to.2 :00 p.m. on September 4, 1980, which motion Noes X carried. • There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach r� LJ -33- ADJOURN- MENT.