Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/1984r t REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONERS PLACE: City council chambers MINUTES ro TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: August 23, 1984 � m5 • 3 m ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX x x x x All Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT .0motion 1 Ayes Motion All Ayes x x x x Ix James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney r * r STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary r Minutes of July 19, 1984 Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission minutes of July 19, 1984 as written, which MOTION CARRIED. * a Requests for Continuances Planning .Director Hewicker stated that staff is requesting that Item No. 1 - A Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3104 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 1984. Planning Director Hewicker further advised that the staff is recommending that Item No. 6 - Resubdivision No. 786 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 1984. Planning Director Hewicker also stated that staff is requesting that Agenda Item No. 7 - Development Agreement No. 2 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 1984. Motion was made that the Planning Commission continue Item No. 1, A Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3104, Item No. 6, Resubdivision No. 786, and Item No. 7, COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �^ August 23, 1984 n � � it; - m in City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • u Development Agreement No. 2 to the Planning Commission meeting of September.6, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. x w r A. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a multi -use Aquatic Center in the Unclassified District. AND B. Use Permit No. 3104 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a multi -use Aquatic Center in the Unclassified District which includes indoor boat storage., an indoor exercise room, training hostel, coordinator apartment, locker rooms, weight, training room, sports medicine room, mul- ti- purpose assembly room, boat workshop, outdoor and indoor support facilities and related off- street parking spaces. The proposal also includes a request to construct the proposed building at a height of 28 feet with roof mounted solar panels and clerestories at a height of 331 feet. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking; and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 165, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 420 North Star .Lane, on the northerly side of North Star Lane, easterly of White Cliffs Drive, in Westcliff. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANTS: City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Aquatic Center, Newport Beach OWNERS: City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange -2- Item #1 TRAFFIC STUDY ant USE PERMI NO. 3104 Continued to Septerc ber 20, 1984 COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES m August 23, 1984 • 9 m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I J= I INDEX Motion All Ayes • n LJ x x x Staff advised that the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 6, 1984. Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 6, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. w • x Variance No. 1113 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit renovations and additions, to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling on a lot in the R -1 .District which exceeds the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit existing and proposed additions to encroach 1 foot and 2 feet into the required 4 foot side yard adjacent to Dahlia Avenue, and one foot into . the required 4 foot interior side yard. The existing building that encroaches into the required 10 foot rear yard will be removed in conjunction with the proposed development. LOCATION: Parcel A of Parcel Map 5092 -424 (Resubdivision No. 110) located at 2601 Way Lane, on the southeasterly corner of Way Lane and Dahlia Avenue, in China Cove. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: .Philip J. Gold, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff has been receiving copies of letters dealing with hardship and the idea of establishing a precedent with this application. He pointed out to the Planning Commission that hardship is not a requirement for the Planning Commission to grant a variance, inasmuch as it is a term that is not found in the Municipal Code or State Planning Law. Planning Director Hewicker further stated that there are certain findings that the Planning Commission must make to approve a variance and those findings are set forth in the Staff Report. One of the findings to make is by virtue of the fact that the -3- Item #2 VARIANCE NO. 1113 DENIED RELATED MODIFICA- TION APPROVED MINUTES m - -- -- August 23, 1984 n x � V � • m m City of Newport Beach =LL I I I I I I I INDEX otion ll Ayes I►� x Ix property is unusual or unique and does not pertain to any other property in this general area or zoning district. Mr. Hewicker also stated an Addendum to the staff report had been prepared in response to meetings between Planning Department Staff and individual members of the Planning Commission and that in the event a variance is approved, staff provided the Planning Commission with findings that not only contain the necessary language but also facts, and they have been worked out between the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Hugh Coffin, representing the applicants and owners, appeared before the Commission. Mr.Coffin stated that when Mr.Adams, the architect, gives his presentation he will need more than the required 5 minutes in order to present to the Planning Commission all of the changes made since their last meeting. A motion was made to allow Mr. Adams 15 minutes . for his presentation. Mr. Coffin stated that the Variance was necessary because this was an unusual situation, and it was necessary for property rights, and will not materially affect adversely the neighboring properties. Mr. Coffin further stated that this variance would not set a precedent due to the unique circumstances. The application had been modified considerably from the initial plan since the plane of the roof no longer exceeds the ridge height of the existing roof. Mr. Coffin stated that a hardship was created for the applicant when a modification to the Zoning Code was approved to the neighboring structure. Mr. Ernest Adams, Architect, stated he was also representing the applicants. He indicated that there would be 4 subjects he would talk about: (1) Hardship (2) Description of Proposal (3) Impact on the Anderson residence and (4) Issue at Present. Mr. Adams commented first on the hardship issue. He said the Gold's residence was in escrow at the time the yard encroachments were approved for the neighboring structure, located at 2600 Cove Street. They did not oppose said modifications because they were not aware -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m August 23, 1984 n � - v � m m m City of Newport Beach INDEX of the extensive remodeling, and construction did not begin until after the Golds acquired ownership. Plans approved for the building at that time permitted the structure to be enlarged from 1 1/2 times to two times the buildable area of the site and also permitted an encroachment of 6' into the rear yard so the building was built to within 4' of the rear property line. Mr. Adams further stated that the subject building remained until the fire two years ago when it was partially destroyed. The same plan was restored at the time the structure was rebuilt except for one major alteration that did not require a variance or modification, and that was the addition of the mansard roof to the structure. This roof was built over the pre- existing flat roof. The mansard roof and the skylights were built within the past 2 years and the skylights are one of the major problems that the Golds have experienced. Mr. Adams commented further on the Description of the Proposal. The roof has been lowered to no higher than the ridge of the existing roof. Furthermore, a 6'6" setback from' the interior property line is being maintained, instead of 3' as originally proposed. . The plans have been revised so as to conform to floor area, setbacks and open space requirements, and that the family room is being reduced. Mr. Adams presented pictures showing views from Mrs. Anderson's house, located at 2607 Ocean Boulevard - a view from the house and a view from the deck. He stated that a person's view from the existing Anderson residence is totally unaffected by the Golds' proposal. Mr. Adams did state there is an impact on the total view from the mid -point of the deck because the deck is more in back of the Golds' residence. Mr. Adams then pointed out in detail just where the view would be obstructed and Mr. Adams felt that said obstruction was negligible. Mr. Adams further stated there is 25'7" of height available above the Golds' roof to Ocean Boulevard and, therefore, should not affect the view from the street. Mr. Adams then discussed the Issue at Present. Mr. Adams stated that the neighboring structure located at 2600 Cove Street, grossly exceeds the zoning standards and has created a hardship on the Golds' property. Mr. Adams pointed out various homes in.China Cove and their building structures and views,and stated that he did not feel that in comparing those homes with the Golds, • that they would be setting a precedent, and that no -5- ROLL CALL hardship would be created. Furthermore, the proposed development would be a credit to the China Cove environment and would benefit the Anderson residence because by removing the foliage it would improve the view and would also improve property values. Commissioner King referred to the proposed building height. He commented that there is reference in the staff report to another property where the average height was taken, and Commissioner King asked about the average height of the proposed construction of the Gold residence, pointing out that the staff report indicates that the'height varies from 28' to 32'. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the method that has been established for measuring height precludes staff from saying the average height of the Gold residence is a certain elevation, because each roof element is measured at its ridge and the average point of the slope of each roof to calculate whether it meets the height limit. The number of points to be measured on several roof planes on a sloping piece of property • is infinite. Commissioner King referred to the previous Variance Application to exceed the basic height limit in China Cove, page 3 of the staff report, which states that "The applicant maintained that relief from the Code was necessary because the unusual topography of the site precluded development of a structure that conformed to the height limit." Commissioner King also noted that the Golds' application says the same thing, and he remarked that both the Planning Commission and the City Council had sustained that argument in the, previously approved variance. Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred to the previous variance discussed in the staff report. Mr. Laycock noted that there was a request to convert two houses into one dwelling unit, and the site was fairly flat. In this current case, this structure is on a sloping lot. Commissioner King referred back to the variance in the. staff report and was trying to.compare the difference in structures. Planning Director Hewicker noted that in the previously approved variance, the two structures extended out over rock outcroppings with the remaining • portion of the lot relatively flat. -6- MINUTES INDEX m z x August 23, 1984 � m c � • y � > > m ° o ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL hardship would be created. Furthermore, the proposed development would be a credit to the China Cove environment and would benefit the Anderson residence because by removing the foliage it would improve the view and would also improve property values. Commissioner King referred to the proposed building height. He commented that there is reference in the staff report to another property where the average height was taken, and Commissioner King asked about the average height of the proposed construction of the Gold residence, pointing out that the staff report indicates that the'height varies from 28' to 32'. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the method that has been established for measuring height precludes staff from saying the average height of the Gold residence is a certain elevation, because each roof element is measured at its ridge and the average point of the slope of each roof to calculate whether it meets the height limit. The number of points to be measured on several roof planes on a sloping piece of property • is infinite. Commissioner King referred to the previous Variance Application to exceed the basic height limit in China Cove, page 3 of the staff report, which states that "The applicant maintained that relief from the Code was necessary because the unusual topography of the site precluded development of a structure that conformed to the height limit." Commissioner King also noted that the Golds' application says the same thing, and he remarked that both the Planning Commission and the City Council had sustained that argument in the, previously approved variance. Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred to the previous variance discussed in the staff report. Mr. Laycock noted that there was a request to convert two houses into one dwelling unit, and the site was fairly flat. In this current case, this structure is on a sloping lot. Commissioner King referred back to the variance in the. staff report and was trying to.compare the difference in structures. Planning Director Hewicker noted that in the previously approved variance, the two structures extended out over rock outcroppings with the remaining • portion of the lot relatively flat. -6- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES x August 23, 1984 E m � • V 0 y ° ' ` City of Newport Beach 0 ROLL CALL INDEX -7- Commissioner Turner questioned Mr.Adams about how much the mansard roof encroaches into the setback area. Mr. Adams replied that it was the same encroachment as the wall below the roof. Mr. Turner asked Mr. Adams if the purpose of the variance was to eliminate the reflection from the skylights on the adjoining residence,or to get a better view of the ocean? Mr. Adams' reply was that to overcome the hardship of the reflection into the Golds' living area was to raise the living area of the house. Commissioner Turner remarked that the reflective glare could be eliminated by wrought iron or wood along the guard rail so that they could not see directly into the skylights. Mr. Adams stated that the Golds have installed blinds on their windows and did not think there was a big difference. Mr. Turner said he was just trying to eliminate an unsightly rooftop. Mrs. Bobbie Lovell, 1242 .West Ocean Front, Newport Beach, appeared on behalf of Mrs. Anderson. Mrs. Lovell showed pictures of a similar situation to the subject property and the adjoining property located at • 2600 Cove Street, and she pointed out, that a "massive" building had been created in front of a smaller building, blocking off the view of the smaller structure. Mrs. Lovell compared her own house with the Golds, stating that she also lived next door to a house that has a skylight and she has put up blinds. Mrs. Lovell said that in speaking with Golds' neighbor, Mr. Lewis,. she asked if he had been approached to do something about the skylights and she said that he was startled by the problem, but his reply was that blinds should take care of the situation. Mrs. Lovell's feelings were that not much discussion had been made between the .Golds and the Lewis family. Mrs. Lovell opined that the Golds had an opportunity to object to the modifications made on the roof height. However, at that time, a report states that their main concern was over adequate garage spaces on the Lewis property. Mrs. Lovell read a formal statement on behalf of Mrs. Anderson. It cited that if the variance would be approved, Mrs. Anderson would have to exceed the height limit if she desired to build on her vacant lot and maintain the view. In order for the Golds to have a view, it was recommended that the Golds remove their trees and to remove the 7' encroachment in their 10 foot rear yard. She queried, "is a variance warranted ? ", answering, "only when no solutions are . available." She read the Findings in the staff report and concurred with the staff's Findings for denial. -7- MINUTES m m August 23, 1984 iE • > > m n m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I 1 111 1 INDEX Planning Director Hewicker asked Mrs. Lovell if Mrs. Anderson was planning on building an additional unit on her lot? Mrs. Anderson indicated that only an expansion of the existing structure is anticipated. Commissioner Goff asked staff if Mrs.Anderson's lot were large enough to resubdivide into two legal -sized parcels. Planning Director Hewicker answered that there is not adequate area. Planning Commissioner Goff referred to the Lewis' legal encroachment adjacent to the rear yard of the Gold house. Mr. Hewicker stated that another modification had been granted for an additional extension into the yard, but not for the height of the roof. Commissioner Turner questioned how the height would be measured if the Anderson property would be expanded. Mr. Hewicker replied that the height would be measured from the average height of the roof to the ground below. • Lynn Moses, 151 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, spoke in opposition to the applicant's request. Ms. Moses stated that comparing levelor blinds vs. re- designing the house and blocking Mrs. Anderson's view does not appear to be a hardship case. She urged a denial of the variance. Chairman Winburn asked if the applicants would care to return to the podium. Mr. Hugh Coffin recited an overview of the neighboring structure's background and why this situation has become a hardship. He pointed out that the Golds were not aware of the modifications on the Lewis. property, and therefore, were not in a position to object to the yard encroachment. Planning Director Hewicker stated they were aware of the modification but did not object to the height. Mr.Coffin further commented on the modifications, hardships, and encroachments of this issue. Chairman Winburn closed the public hearing at this time. Commissioner Kurlander questioned whether it was possible to rebuild the structure or enlarge it to conform to the height limitations? Mr.Adams commented that they could not increase the height of the structure without the approval of a variance, but they could expand the lower level of the home without a variance. IIIIIIII COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m f ' ` m v � • m n City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr.Don Osen, West Coast Highway, Newport Beach appeared before the Commission. As a realtor, Mr. Osen stated that Mrs. Anderson's property would have a diminished view from the house and deck and would de- evaluate said property if the variance were approved. He recommended a denial of the application. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele stated that the normal enforcement mechanism is by complaint only with respect to zoning matters unless a matter is observed by staff as a material hazard to the community. Mr.. Gabriele further stated that his office could draft a covenant to ensure compliance of the height of the trees on the Gold property if the Commission wished to do so., Commissioner King confirmed with Mr. Gabriele that preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights does not grant a variance. Commissioner Person.complimented both Mr.Adams and Mrs. Lovell on their arguments. He related how difficult it • was to come to a decision in this situation but in deference to the staff report, made a motion to deny the variance request but approve the proposed side yard encroachments subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ". Commissioner King also complimented the presentations. Commissioner King stated that a hardship had not been clearly demonstrated and therefore, supported the motion. Commissioner Goff stated that he could not support the motion, commenting that Mrs. Anderson did not lose any view. Furthermore, the applicants had lost light because of the :approved encroachment on the adjoining Lewis property. Commissioner Turner extended his compliments to the applicants for their fine presentation, stating that he also would support the motion. He commented that there are alternative ways to solving their main objective. He also questioned that if . the variance were granted, what their view would be, and also if granted, and the Anderson home was expanded, that the Anderson home would be in a hardship situation and Mrs. Anderson would also have to exceed the - allowable building height. • -9- COMMISSIONERS m o � � � c m m G m m ' F 0 City of August 23, 1984 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I J i 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Ayes Noes • • x x Commissioner Eichenhofer stated she cannot support the motion because there is not a residence behind the Gold's property that would be affected by the approval of this application. Commissioner King opined that over the past years, the applicants have not shown concern over their neighbors' views by trimming their vegetation or ensuring their neighbors have the same viewing opportunities which is what they wish to achieve by this construction. Commissioner Person's motion was now voted on as follows, which NOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. 'That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as a majority of the newly constructed and substantially expanded single family dwellings in the China Cove area have complied with the height limit requirements. '2. That the granting of a variance to the basic height limit requirement is not necessary for the preservation and.enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the subject structure could be redesigned to meet this requirement. 3. That the proposed building height will, 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 and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. 4: The proposed side yard setback encroachments are comparable to existing setbacks of other properties in the area and the approval of the requested encroachments 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 -10- MINUTES ^' August 23, 1984 n x m v � • m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Irl III I INDEX • • 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the structure shall be redesigned so as to conform to the building height requirements set forth in Section 20.02.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That the gross floor area of the structure shall not exceed 3,614.3 square feet (1.5 x Buildable Area). 4. This modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval. • x +r The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Use Permit No. 3107 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to increase the allowable occupancy of the existing Baxter's Restaurant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages and dancing, and to establish a new parking requirement based upon "net public area ". The proposal also includes the approval of a comprehensive parking plan with additional parking spaces, involving the adjoining parking areas for the "Reuben E. Lee" and "Reuben's" Restaurants and the adjoining marina opera- tion. A Modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow a portion of the restriped parking area to include compact parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot B of Parcel Map No. 16 -10 (Resubdivision No. 249) (i.e. restaurant site), located at 333 Bayside Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Bayside Drive and East Coast Highway, across -11- Item #3 ❑SR PRRMT :vv. aiv, Continued to Septett. ber 20, 1984 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES M. August 23, 1984 o � f � � v � • m 0 0 m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I INDEX -12- from the De Anza Mobile Home Park. ZONE: C' -1 -H APPLICANT: Far West Services, Inc., Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Commissioner Goff asked Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, to comment regarding the compact parking spaces adjacent to Baxter's Restaurant. He noted that he would like to see the compact spaces be better dispersed throughout the common parking lot. Mr. Webb replied that a portion of the spaces had already been marked for compact spaces, and the City would like to see said spaces dispersed more evenly. Planning Director Hewicker clarified Commissioner Goff's statement by stating that Mr. Goff's concern was in regard to the number of compact spaces now at Baxter's Restaurant. Commissioner Goff explained further that most of the proposed compact spaces are a distance from the buildings on the property, and as the spaces fill up • close to the businesses, the only spaces remaining would be compact spaces. Mr. Webb confirmed Mr. Goff's statement, but he went on to say that it would be difficult to change the physical layout because the spaces would vary in size and in order to take advantage of a narrow aisle width the compact spaces would have to be grouped together. Commissioner Goff suggested more compact spaces may be put in front of the yacht broker offices and the Reuben E. Lee Restaurant facility. Mr. Webb said he did not think the spacing would be possible in front of the Reuben E. Lee Restaurant, but possibly in the marina area. Mr. Webb's main concern was the jogging of compact spaces and the longer regular sized spaces in the same driving aisle. Commissioner King asked what the aisle width one normally associates with the 450 angle parking. Mr. Webb stated .that- said aisle would be between 18' -21'. Commissioner King opined that the least amount of aisle width would seem to be a place where you would want compact spaces. Commissioner Kurlander asked City Engineer Webb if any consideration had been given to the closure of the first driveway south of East Coast Highway on Bayside Drive? Commissioner Kurlander cited examples of the dangers of that particular driveway. Mr. Webb explained • that for automobiles coming from the easterly side of town to go to the Reuben E. Lee Restaurant, motorists -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ^! August 23, 1984 n � v � • > > m m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I 111 111 1 INDEX -13- need to make a left turn from East Coast Highway into that driveway and one also needs to use the driveway to .make a right -turn coming out of the Reuben E. Lee Restaurant to go onto Bayside Drive. Commissioner Kurlander remarked that there is a very serious traffic situation because of the left turns coming out of that driveway. Mr. Webb commented that there is a "no left turn" sign there, but it is not being enforced.. Mr. Webb commented further that Baxter's Restaurant could not support the traffic of the entire common parking lot if that driveway were to be closed. Commissioner Kurlander opined that by adding more on -site parking spaces, more traffic will be created. Commissioner Person asked if the subject driveway could be restricted to "entrance only" and restrict exits by using spikes in the pavement. Mr. Webb did not think that would be a practical solution. Chairman Winburn cited that the valet parking attendants in front of Baxter's Restaurant create more congestion, and therefore does not feel it feasible to have valets in this area. Chairman Winburn recommended further review • of this matter. Mr. Person cited that motorists that have to travel west on East Coast Highway must come out of that driveway and make a left -turn. Commissioner King questioned why the parking standards are based on a per seat ratio for some restaurants and square footage on others, and why there is not a consistency of required parking spaces? Planning Director Hewicker explained that the parking space standards were changed in 1975. He stated that the number of seats in a restaurant often did not match the number of seats in which the parking requirement had been based, and so the parking standards were amended to be based on the square footage of the "net public area" of a restaurant. Commissioner King questioned Mr. Hewicker as to whether the parking spaces for all of the uses on -site could be based on some conformity? Mr. Hewicker stated that it may be very difficult to come up with the required number of parking spaces with the existing non - conforming number of parking spaces for Reubens and Reuben E. Lee Restaurants. Mr. Hewicker stated that when Baxter's Restaurant was originally built, because there was not sufficient space to accomodate all of the required parking, the Planning Commission at that time established an, artificial occupancy in the restaurant 'facility by the . • number of available parking spaces in the lot. The City created an enforcement problem where the restaurant has -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m x August 23, -1984- f m o � 1 m m m m m City of Newport Beach =LL + INDEX -14- an occupancy load established, in one respect, by Fire and Building regulations, and an artificial occupancy load established by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker commented that this information was not passed on between restaurant managements, and therefore, this conflict has occurred. Commissioner Turner questioned staff regarding the varied businesses utilizing the . parking spaces consisting of retail, restaurant and yacht brokerage uses, and if there have been any problems of having _ insufficient parking spaces during different times of day? Mr. Hewicker replied that there has probably been many times when parking has been used to the maximum including when Bobby McGee's Restaurant patrons have used the subject parking lot. Commissioner Turner asked City Engineer Webb if the parking layout meets all of the parking design criteria? Mr. Webb, answered, yes, as far as he knew. Commissioner Goff opined that there is a deficiency of • handicapped spaces. Planning Administrator Laycock replied that there was a deficiency, and that the applicants have to meet the handicapped parking standards. Two handicapped spaces are required at Baxter's and Reubens, and four at the Reuben E. Lee Restaurant. Commissioner Goff recommended there be a continuance of this hearing as he would like to see a better layout of the compact spaces. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, 2821 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, represented the applicant before the Commission. Mr. Loomis cited that in the summer there is valet parking between 5:00 p.m. - 11:30 p.m. on the weekends only at the Reubens and Reuben E. Lee Restaurants, but not at Baxter's Restaurant, and there are no plans to have valet parking in the foreseeable future. In regard to the compact parking space distribution, Mr. Loomis stated they have been working with the City Traffic Engineer and some of the Traffic Engineer's recommendations have been applied in,the distribution of the compact spaces. Assisted by the Traffic Engineer, they feel that they have arrived at the best location for the compact .spaces on the site. • Commissioner King cited that there are deed restrictions from the Irvine Company restricting use of -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m x August 23, 1984 � m w ° ' City of Newport Beach m � ROLL CALL INDEX E • the retail/office building parking spaces for restaurant or other commercial uses, and that the applicants have included those parking spaces in their plans. He added that reciprocal agreements will be required, and the the Irvine Company will have to work with the tenants to restructure, those agreements. Commissioner King inquired about the two boat slips that come with the building and the provision to preserve access to.the boat slips that run with the land on the building. Mr. Loomis stated that he was not familiar with same. The applicants had accounted for 132 boat slips and 99 parking spaces for said boat slips. Mr. Loomis added that the applicants will be able to. meet the 8 required handicapped spaces on the site, with the possibility of losing 1 or 2 surplus. spaces. Mr. Loomis continued by saying that there is no live entertainment at Baxter's Restaurant, and none is proposed. Furthermore, they are -meeting all parking requirements. Mr. Loomis stated that the noise generated by Baxter's Restaurant is below the City's maximum standard. The applicants agree with all the findings and conditions in the staff report. Commissioner King commented that the loading area next to the subject restaurant facility has been used for valet parking by the other restaurants in the past. Chairman Winburn asked if what she was seeing in front of Baxter's Restaurant were valets for Reuben's Restaurant parking their cars in front of Baxter's? Mr. Loomis stated that they could be uniformed.security personnel employed by Baxter's Restaurant. Mr. Ralph Roberts, President, Dinner House Division, W. R. Grace, responsible for the Far west Services operations, including Baxter's Restaurant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Roberts stated that they will change their hours to comply with the staff report's recommendations. Mr. Roberts further stated that since the first of May, Baxter's management has had a very close relationship with Sgt. Long of the Newport Beach Police Department and they have been working together in a very compatible manner. Mr. Roberts commented further that Baxter's has hired two outside security personnel to take care of any problems in the parking area, and the restaurant has their own Security inside the facility for any disturbances that may arise. A Newport Beach policeman has been hired by Baxter's Restaurant to train their security personnel. -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m x August 23, 1984 g m $ • = ' in ' City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • • Mr. Lee Sammis, 94 Linda Isle, spoke in opposition to the proposal.' Mr.Sammis stated that he has enjoyed the restaurants and known the founders of the restaurant chain for many years. He stated that he has viewed these establishments from his home for many years and feels it is a very bad design as it relates to the parking area. As a commercial establishment the restaurants have been good neighbors. However, as a land developer and the landscaping requirements he has to meet, Mr. Sammis felt very strongly that the applicants - should provide more landscaping than is noted on the plans. He recommended the following conditions: 1).Landscape 1596 of the parking area, not to include any landscaping required for front, side and rear peripheral areas, which areas should require 20' landscape setbacks; 2.) One 20 gallon shade tree for every four parking stalls. The trees to be clustered with at least two trees in each planter; 3.) All parking areas shall be screened from views from adjacent properties and streets with said screening to include walls, ferns and evergreens; 4.) No .further compact spaces or tandem parking be allowed; 5.) Where the bridge approaches the south side of the Reuben E. Lee Restaurant, the area should be landscaped with 25 gallon trees with appropriate ground cover; 6.) On the south side of Coast Highway there is a gap in a_ concrete wall. Said wall should be filled in to assist the noise polution to the adjacent residences; 7.)Double striping should be provided for all parking spaces; 8.). No music be allowed except inside the restaurant facility with the doors and windows closed; and '9.) The hours of operation should be restricted if at all possible. In summary, Mr.Sammis suggested that the City ask the applicant to meet the City's current landscaping standards. Planning Director Hewicker replied by stating that he thought that it would_ be wonderful to have all the landscaping suggested by Mr. Sammis, but the current problem needs to be resolved. Furthermore, the suggested landscaping would require the elimination of several on -site parking spaces, and there may not be enough square footage remaining in the restaurants, and one -half of, the marina may have to be eliminated. Mr. Sammis added under his conditions that all regular parking spaces should meet a standard of 9' x 19' for regular spaces, 8' x 16' for compact spaces, and -25' aisles. -16- MINUTES m August 23,, 1984 n � m • z > N ° ' City of Newport Beach m >m�m�m ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Paul Brown, P. 0. Box 2815, Newport Beach, stated that he was a former owner of the property next to Baxter's Restaurant, but is now a trust deed holder with a 55 year lease on the property. He stated that he was not notified of the public hearing, and was inquiring why he had not been notified. Planning Director Hewicker replied by saying that leaseholders are not notified. Land owners are notified, and in this case, the Irvine Company was notified of the application. Mr. Brown proclaimed that.he would like to preserve his rights to appeal any decision that may be made on the grounds that it may be detrimental to his situation. Mr. Hewicker replied that anyone aggrieved by the action of the Commission, whether it be the applicant, property owners or lessees, may appeal to the City Council within 21 days from the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown asked if he would be notified. Mr. Hewicker stated if he appeals, he would be the appellant and he would be notified. • Mr. Rudy Merriman, Linda Isle, delivered 28 proxies to the Commission from residents who oppose additional parking at Baxter's Restaurant. He added that his main concern is his office next door to the restaurant facility, which has been - located there for about 11 - 12 years. He has had to come to his office at various times during the evening hours. He recommended that parking spaces be allocated to the office building on a permanent basis and not be available for restaurant parking in the evenings. Mr. Hewicker stated that it was his understanding that one -half of the spaces in front of the office building will be reserved for the office uses during the evening hours. Mr. Merriman replied that when a chain is installed to reserve said parking spaces, it does not seem to last very long. Commissioner Person asked Mr. Merriman if the residents who signed the proxies were aware that Baxter's hours of operation may be restricted as a condition of approval? Mr. Merriman did not believe they did. Mr. Person queried Mr. Merriman if he thought the residents have any objections to the adding 40 on -site parking spaces, and the new closing hours of 12:00 midnight on weekdays, and 2:00 a.m. on weekends? Mr. Merriman stated he was not aware of that. Mr. Merriman felt that the residents were more concerned about the foot and car traffic surrounding the restaurants. Mr. Person made reference to the fact that the Planning • I I I I Commission may add and /or modify conditions of approval -17- MINUTES INDEX to the use permit if they feel it is warranted upon approval of the change. Mr. Craig Brown, son of Mr. Paul Brown, stated that he had been half -owner of the Islander Building until recently and will have an office in the building for at least another year. He commented that there has been an over -use of the parking in front of their building by Baxter's Restaurant at certain times, and there have been conflicting hours between the retail business and the restaurant, explaining there are very few parking spaces between the islander Building and Bast Coast Highway. He stated that allowing more people in the restaurant is not going to solve the .problem. He pointed out that during peak hours there are as many people standing in line outside the restaurant facility as there are inside, and those people need parking spaces. Chairman Winburn closed the public hearing at this. time. Commissioner Goff asked who was notified of public hearings. Planning Director Hewicker replied • that all property owners within 300' of a subject property, and not lessors, are notified of public hearings. Commissioner Turner stated that he thought long term lease holders were also notified. Commissioner King stated that it was his understanding that .adjacent to the Coast Highway bridge, there is a designated boat launching area. He questioned whether there were any restrictions -on the area for that use, and what parking provisions had been made for that operation? Mr. Hewicker answered by stating that particular property was under a long term lease to one of the tenants of the Irvine Copmpany, and in the event it would be used as a boat launching facility, its access would be directly north of the bridge, and therefore, the boats would not come through the restaurant parking lot. Chairman Winburn asked how long the seating capacity of 175 or 180 persons had existed at Baxter's Restaurant? Mr. Hewicker stated that the Fire Department had designated an occupancy load of 170 persons since it was built, in violation of the requirement to reduce the occupancy. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele said: that their office became aware of the conflict of the occupancy load by the Fire Department and parking • restrictions. Contacts were made with the restaurant management,. and the City Attorney did enter into an -18- m n August 23, 1984 f m � • > > m q o m City of Newport Beach INDEX to the use permit if they feel it is warranted upon approval of the change. Mr. Craig Brown, son of Mr. Paul Brown, stated that he had been half -owner of the Islander Building until recently and will have an office in the building for at least another year. He commented that there has been an over -use of the parking in front of their building by Baxter's Restaurant at certain times, and there have been conflicting hours between the retail business and the restaurant, explaining there are very few parking spaces between the islander Building and Bast Coast Highway. He stated that allowing more people in the restaurant is not going to solve the .problem. He pointed out that during peak hours there are as many people standing in line outside the restaurant facility as there are inside, and those people need parking spaces. Chairman Winburn closed the public hearing at this. time. Commissioner Goff asked who was notified of public hearings. Planning Director Hewicker replied • that all property owners within 300' of a subject property, and not lessors, are notified of public hearings. Commissioner Turner stated that he thought long term lease holders were also notified. Commissioner King stated that it was his understanding that .adjacent to the Coast Highway bridge, there is a designated boat launching area. He questioned whether there were any restrictions -on the area for that use, and what parking provisions had been made for that operation? Mr. Hewicker answered by stating that particular property was under a long term lease to one of the tenants of the Irvine Copmpany, and in the event it would be used as a boat launching facility, its access would be directly north of the bridge, and therefore, the boats would not come through the restaurant parking lot. Chairman Winburn asked how long the seating capacity of 175 or 180 persons had existed at Baxter's Restaurant? Mr. Hewicker stated that the Fire Department had designated an occupancy load of 170 persons since it was built, in violation of the requirement to reduce the occupancy. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele said: that their office became aware of the conflict of the occupancy load by the Fire Department and parking • restrictions. Contacts were made with the restaurant management,. and the City Attorney did enter into an -18- Motion All Ayes • E x August 23, 1984 of Newport Beach understanding whereby they would pursue a resolution that would satisfy the Planning staff and the administrative positions. The City Attorney would refrain from enforcing the 105 person occupancy limitations so long as there were no other operation objections. He added that the Police Department has stated there have been no complaints. The occupancy load has been cut back to 150 persons, with the stipulation that the applicants obtain the approval of, a use permit to increase the occupant load to avoid litigation. Commissioner Goff asked if the Police Department had received any noise complaints. Assistant Attorney Gabriele said he was not aware of any noise complaints that had to be enforced by the Police Department. Commissioner Person asked to reopen the public hearing to ask Mr. Paul Brown a question. A motion was made and passed to open the public hearing. Mr.. Paul Brown queried why the occupancy load :had increased from 105 persons to a more recent number of up to 170 persons? Planning Director Hewicker replied that when the restaurant was built, the occupancy was based on the number of parking spaces. In recent years, the parking requirement was changed to conform to the square footage of the "net public area" within a restaurant. Mr.Person asked Mr.Brown what his main objection to the applicant's request was and Mr.Brown replied that he had not been notified of the change. Mr.Brown repeated his complaint about the people standing outside the restaurant facility waiting to get in, and by creating more parking spaces, more people would be allowed to enter said restaurant. Furthermore, Baxter's Restaurant is already at capacity which has created irregular parking at times. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Roberts if that number of between 100 and 150 people standing outside Baxter's were true. Mr.Roberts confirmed that on Friday and Saturday nights, and possibly when the restaurant first opened, that may be the case. Assistant City Attorney.Gabriele cited that one of Mr. Loomis' statements was that upon approval of the use permit, signatures would be obtained for the reciprocal parking agreement. Mr. Gabriele felt that the Commission should set up a time frame for the signatures in the event of an approval. Mr. Roberts replied that the signatures would come from the Irvine Company. Mr. Gabriele said that if no time frame were -19- MINUTES INDEX T n x m o w O � x G1 � • Motion All Ayes • E x August 23, 1984 of Newport Beach understanding whereby they would pursue a resolution that would satisfy the Planning staff and the administrative positions. The City Attorney would refrain from enforcing the 105 person occupancy limitations so long as there were no other operation objections. He added that the Police Department has stated there have been no complaints. The occupancy load has been cut back to 150 persons, with the stipulation that the applicants obtain the approval of, a use permit to increase the occupant load to avoid litigation. Commissioner Goff asked if the Police Department had received any noise complaints. Assistant Attorney Gabriele said he was not aware of any noise complaints that had to be enforced by the Police Department. Commissioner Person asked to reopen the public hearing to ask Mr. Paul Brown a question. A motion was made and passed to open the public hearing. Mr.. Paul Brown queried why the occupancy load :had increased from 105 persons to a more recent number of up to 170 persons? Planning Director Hewicker replied that when the restaurant was built, the occupancy was based on the number of parking spaces. In recent years, the parking requirement was changed to conform to the square footage of the "net public area" within a restaurant. Mr.Person asked Mr.Brown what his main objection to the applicant's request was and Mr.Brown replied that he had not been notified of the change. Mr.Brown repeated his complaint about the people standing outside the restaurant facility waiting to get in, and by creating more parking spaces, more people would be allowed to enter said restaurant. Furthermore, Baxter's Restaurant is already at capacity which has created irregular parking at times. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Roberts if that number of between 100 and 150 people standing outside Baxter's were true. Mr.Roberts confirmed that on Friday and Saturday nights, and possibly when the restaurant first opened, that may be the case. Assistant City Attorney.Gabriele cited that one of Mr. Loomis' statements was that upon approval of the use permit, signatures would be obtained for the reciprocal parking agreement. Mr. Gabriele felt that the Commission should set up a time frame for the signatures in the event of an approval. Mr. Roberts replied that the signatures would come from the Irvine Company. Mr. Gabriele said that if no time frame were -19- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m x August 23, 1984 r2 a c m m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL ` INDEX Notion •yes Abstain • x Ix imposed with respect to meeting the condition, this could go on to an infinite period of time. Commissioner King stated that if the condition should be approved they would want to be assured all the mechanisms were enforced, primarily between the landowner and the lessees. Commissioner Goff reviewed his understanding of the application by stating that Baxter's is operating under an existing lease agreement, and that they are not adhering to an occupancy load of 105 seats, which has been approved by staff on a temporary basis, depending upon the outcome of this hearing. Planning Director Hewicker replied that the City Attorney's office is trying to pursue a solution to the parking problem so that .additional parking can be provided and Baxters restaurant will then be able to operate at an occupancy load consistent with the Building and Fire regulations. A motion was made to continue the public hearing on this matter to September 20, 1984, so as to give the applicants additional time to revise the parking layout as discussed at the meeting which NOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Goff also requested that staff prepare Findings for denial, and review the parking requirements for Reuben's and Reuben E. Lee Restaurants under current parking requirements. Resubdivision No. 784 (Public Hearing) I Item #4 .Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land RESUBDIV located in the Newport Place Planned Community so as to ISION create a single parcel for office condominium purposes. NO. 784 LOCATION: Parcel No 1 of Parcel Map No. 48 -12 (Resubdivision No. 366), located at 1151 APPROVED Dove Street, On the southwesterly side CONDITION of Dove Street, between Newport Place ALLY Drive and Bowsprit Drive, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Newport Properties I, Ltd., Los Angeles -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ^! August 23, 1984 n x f ' ` m m m City of Newport Beach =LL. . If INDEX Motion All Ayes U • x OWNER: ENGINEER: Same as applicant Hunsaker and Associates, Costa Mesa The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr.Ray Buckley, Hunsaker and Associates, 3001 Red Hill, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Buckley sited that all improvements have been constructed and no new improvements are proposed with this application. Mr. Buckley further cited that an ingress /egress easement has been recorded. Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 784, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" as written, which MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements 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. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That an ingress /egress easement or agreement be provided between the proposed development and the adjacent development to the northwest, prior to recordation of the parcel map. -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m August 23, 1984 x � ' S 9 • m ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL! INDEX • Motion x All Ayes x x x x • Resubdivision No. 785 (Public Hearing) Item #5 Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land located in the Newport Place Planned Community so as to create a single parcel for office condominium purposes. RESUB- DIVISION LOCATION: Parcel No. 2 of Parcel Map No.55 -5 NO. 785 ( Resubdivision No. 398), located at 1000 Quail Street, on the northeasterly side of Quail Street, between Dove Street and APPROVED Spruce Avenue, in the Newport Place CONDITIOI Planned Community. _ALLY ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Newport Properties I, Ltd. Los Angeles OWNER: Same as Applicant - ENGINEER: Hunsaker and Associates, Costa Mesa Planning Director Hewicker recommended that Condition No. 4, relating to further review of on -side parking and circulation by the City Traffic Engineer, be deleted, inasmuch as the parking lot is existing. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ray Buckley, Hunsaker and Associates, agreed with Director Hewicker's recommendation. Motion was made for the approval of Resubdivision No. 785, subject to the following findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" with the deletion of Condition No. 4, which MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements 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. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m 1 x � E • 3 m n m Auqust 23, 1984 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL CONDITIONS: INDEX 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the existing deteriorated portions of concrete sidewalk be reconstructed along the Quail Street frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Resubdivision No. 786 (Public Hearing) k Item #6 Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into two parcels for general office purposes, one RESUB- DIVISION • parcel for office development and related parking, and NO. 786 one parcel for common ancillary surface parking and structure parking. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 and Parcel No. 2 o Parcel CONTINUED Map 120 -44 -45 ( Resubdivision No. 635), TO SEPTEM BER 20, located at 4655 Birch Street, on the northeasterly corner of Birch Street and 1984 MacArthur Boulevard, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ZONE: P' -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant 'ENGINEER: Williamson and Schmid, Civil Engineers, Irvine Motion x Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning All Ayes x x x x Y 2 Y Commission Meeting of September 20, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. • -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES T August 23, 1984 . n x m v � m m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Development Agreement No. 2 (Public Hearing) Item #7 Request to consider a Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company so as to DEVELOP - allow the construction of 888 residential dwelling MENT units and 50,000 square feet of commercial development AGREEMEN' NO. 2 in the North Ford Planned Community and 295,000 square feet of office development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. CONTINUES LOCATION: Property generally located northerly of to.SEPTEP Camelback Street and Bison Avenue, BER 20; between Jamboree Road and MacArthur 1984 Boulevard, in the North Ford Planned . Community; and property located on the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard between Campus Drive and Birch Street in "Office Site C" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. • Motion All Ayes r i LJ Ix ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: Same as applicant Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment No. 84 -1 Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan in order to establish Residential,Commercial and Open Space land use designations for the Irvine Downcoast not previously designated for any specific uses by the Newport Beach General Plan. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on the Irvine Coast Area's Sphere -of- Influence. Mr. Hewicker called the Planning Commission's attention to copies of the State law regarding Sphere -of- Influence that he distributed. In -24- Item #8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84 -1 REC APPROVAL t • • MINUTES m x August 23, 1984 � m c x City of Newport Beach o� 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission established a program, and also at that time established factors that would be considered in deciding those Sphere -of- influence areas which would be established . for the. various cities within Orange County. Mr. Hewicker also stated that most recent amendment to the Newport Beach Sphere -of- Influence in the Downcoast area was made in 1976, and at that time there was an adjustment to the easterly boundary of the City's sphere which created a natural division between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Laguna Beach. Air. Hewicker continued by stating that the items the Local Agency Formation 'Commission uses in order to establish Spheres -of- Influence areas for the various cities include provisions for water mains, sewage facilities, the ability to provide police and fire protection, waste disposal, parks and recreation, compatable street circulation, economic and social relationships, natural topographic features, man -made barriers, and the recognition of a formal General Plan adopted by the various public agencies. The Downcoast area is the only area where the City has an established Spheres -of- Influence with no adopted General Plan. The State Planning Law discusses ability of cities to plan not only within their boundaries, but in areas where they have a planning interest. The City Council has initiated this General Plan Amendment and has asked the Planning Commission to consider this proposal and make a recommendation to them. The simplest and most logical approach is to adopt the General Plan which has already been adopted by the County, and to use their Environmental Document which has already been certified. Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, referred to the plan attached to the staff report which included a proposed Circulation Element. Mr. Lenard stated that the Staff prepared a revisions to the Circulation Element which have been handed out to the Commission and suggested that any motion to approve the plan include these revisions. There is one minor revision in the first four specific proposals relating to Sand Canyon Avenue. The four policies which follow are new policies which relate to the phasing of development with circulation system improvements. These phasing conditions were left out because they were not actually included in the plan but were contained in the resolution adopted by the Board of supervisors in conjunction with their approval. These -25- INDEX • s COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m August 23, 1984 � � c • 3 o m m° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I r I I INDEX Motion All Ayes • Ix changes will make the City's action exactly parallel to that of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Planning Director Hewicker noted the staff has prepared a Resolution for the Commission. Advance Planning Administrator Lenard mentioned that the Resolution speaks in generalities, and includes as an Exhibit, the land use ,plan .which has been distributed to the Planning Commission and is an attachment to the staff report. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1124, and recommend the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 84 -1 and that the Plan be consistent with the County of Orange and the California State Coastal Commission, which MOTION CARRIED. Additional Business Study Session Scheduled Planning Director Hewicker stated that he had been talking to the new owner of the Fun Zone property, and they are planning to come to the City with a plan for the development of that property. Commissioner Person stepped down from the dais and refrained from deliberation on this agenda item due to a potential conflict of interest. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the proposed development would be a group of one story buildings, essentially the same size and configuration that currently exist on the property with the exception that there will be approximately 2,000 additional square feet of building added to the site. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the project would continue with a historical Fun Zone flavor to the property, i.e., a ferris wheel, a merry -go- round, arcades, and take -out restaurants. He commented further that he had suggested to the owners of the property that they might benefit if they presented their plans to the Planning Commission, members of the public and members of any community associations that might be interested in coming to a Study Session, Thursday, September 6, 1984 at 3:30 p.m. The Commission then scheduled said meeting. -26- RESOLUTIC NO. 1124 Additions Rnai nacss M 0 m o` F m � a � : i :mz City of August 23, 1984 Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX • 0 Discussion of Proposed Garage Doors in Cannery Village Planning Director Hewicker reported that he. recently had a conversation with Tony Shephardson, regarding parking spaces at the rear of his property in Cannery Village, which consists of commercial uses on the first floor and a residential use on the second floor. Six parking spaces are located on -site, including three tandem parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker indicated that Mr. Shepardson is having vandalism problems in the commercial parking spaces. A condition of approval of Use Permit No. 3017 on the subject property provided that the commercial parking spaces shall not be enclosed with garage doors. Because he has encountered many problems of vandalism on his property, Mr.Shephardson. has - retained the services of a contractor to put garage doors on the commercial parking spaces, and he has been told by the City that he would be in violation of his use 'permit if he did. Mr. Hewicker recommended that the only way Mr. Shephardson can solve his problem is to obtain the approval of an amended use permit that would delete said condition of approval. On behalf of the entire Planning 'Commission, Planning Commission Chairman Winburn expressed regret of Commissioner Jerry King's resignation. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m. JOHN KURLANDER, SECRETARY Newport Beach City Planning Commission -27- Adjourn- ment