Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/1971COMMISSI9NERS 6 N O N �y 0 g fD 4ALL CALL Present. n U LJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: Council Chambers Time: 8:00 P.M. Date: September 2. 1971 MINUTES INDEX x x x x x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS - James D. Hewicker, Acting Community Development Director Dennis O'Neil, Acting City Attorney Kenneth L. Perry,.Assistant City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS William R. Laycock, Zoning Administrator William R. Foley, Assistant Planner Helen Herrmann ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** On motion of Commissioner Glass, seconded by Commis- sioner Hazewinkel,.and carried, the minutes of August 19, 1971 were.approved as written. ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Item 1. Request to subdivide 0.955 acres into 5 single- TENTATIVE family residential lots and one lot to be utilized TIC as a private driveway. 7410 Location: Portion of Lot 17, Newport Heights, REMOVED located at 2426 East 15th. Street, on FR—� the northerly .side of East 15th Street MUE-NDAR between Powell Place and Gary Place. Zone: R -1 Applicant: John Wielenga Construction, Garden Grove Owner: Donald D. Andrews, Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Laycock noted that this appli- cation had been continued from the meeting of April 15, 1971 at the request of the applicant. The applicant was contacted and asked to submit revised plans but indicated he did not wish to do this and was asked to transmit a letter to that effect; however, he said he would prefer to have the tentative map denied. Acting Community Development-Director Hewicker advised the Commission that if the application were denied it would have to be transmitted to the City Council and suggested, therefore, that it be withdrawn. Page 1. COMMISSIONERS N (D � �!D N ? J fi �L CALL �� m m m Motion Second All Ayes • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX x On motion of Commissioner.Adkinson, seconded by x. Commissioner Agee, and.carried,.the Tentative Map of Tract 7410 was removed from the calendar unless the applicant wishes to place it on the agenda at a future date. Commissioner Adkinson disqualified himself prior to consideration of the following item as he has leasehold interests in two properties on Mariner's Mile. Item 2. Establishing a maximum.height limit of 35 feet for AMEND - all buildings within the City of Newport Beach for MENT a period of one year. NU7701 Assistant Planner Foley reviewed this application APPROVE with the Commission noting that it had been initia WITH ted by the Commission following the denial of Amend TMT fD- ment No. 298 which proposed to establish a 35 foot M— ENTT height limit within the proposed lower Newport Bay Civic District for a period of.two years. Mr. Foley further reviewed the intent of the Civic District Committee and their determination that the complex problems of shoreline development could not be permanently resolved prior to the completion of the city wide general plan studies and had therefore recommended that a 35 foot heigh limit be adopted within the Civic District area fo a. period of two years. Some members of the planning.Commission felt that in order to be fair to all property owners, any temporary height limit should.apply,.equally.,to all properties within the city; however, Mr. Foley stated that staff believed this-would ignore basic zoning principles and reviewed.with the Commission' the implications of such an .ordinance on areas of the city outside of.the Civic District where structures in excess of 35 feet are permanently permitted. He stated further that.staff felt that such an ordinance could have a detrimental effect on many carefully planned developments, and therefore denial was recommended. Acting Community Development.Director Hewicker suggested the possibility.of. amending the original boundary of the Civic District to include the Promontory Bay - Bayside Drive-realignment, two properties on the inland side of Coast Highway, the trailer -park at.Dover Drive and the bridge and "The Arches ", and described additional parcels Page 2. COMM15519NERS N O f N GLL CALL a� N m m a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2. 1971 INDEX which the Commission might -wish to add or delete from the Civic District- .area. :These areas were pointed out on.a- colored.map:on display in the Council Chambers. He also reviewed with the Commission correspondence from Newport Residents United (which was unsigned) and a draft of two pro =, posed ordinances from this group. Mr. William Hall of 503 Fernleaf, Corona del Mar, addressed the Commission suggesting that the oppo- sition to the moratorium was coming from the Irvine Company and the large developers and that the small property owners agreed.with the Commission. He suggested further that the 35 foot height limit apply to all properties within 2200 yards of the mean tide line or any tidal basin in the city. Mr. Dick Stevens addressed the-Commission and stated he was speaking in behalf of the Balboa Bay Club and not all of the property owners on Mariners Mile as he had not had an opportunity to discuss • this item with them. He said.he felt it was im- possible to treat all.property owners alike and that the city had a moral.:.commitment to developers such as Emkay, The Irvine Company, Promontory Point and other projects that have been hashed and re- hashed and heard and reheard. He felt limiting the height in Mariners Mile would be very dis- criminatory and that it should be expanded; strong consideration should also.be given to other specific areas designated as.high rise sites,.and if use permits and hearings -had not been held on these areas, they should.be.included in the ordi- nance. He thought there was a.need for an indica- tion from the Commission- that.this freeze was not aimed specifically at Mariners Mile but was in- tended to relate to all water oriented properties not approved by project and by "water oriented" he did not mean just waterfront property. The purpose of including these properties was to hold every- thing until the Master Plan has been completed. He further stressed that to confine the ordinance only to Mariner's Mile would set guidelines for the master planners in dealing with the waterfront and the entire Newport Beach picture. He had not seen the two ordinances drafted by the citizens group, but the little information he heard about the density provision was entirely unrealistic and he would strongly oppose any such move at this time. The one year maximum-as proposed was ample time, as opposed to two years, as the ordinance could aTways be reviewed at the end of one year to Page 3. COMMISSIONERS D x WL CALL F 3a xis � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2,.1971 MINUTES INDEX determine the probl.ems....Al_so,.as he understands it, if the ordinance passed;.:all_properties with exist ing structures over 35 feet would become non - conforming. In closing,...he. stated he wanted to remind the Commission,that. the property designated in the Lower Civic.District r.epresented.only'10% of the entire waterfront property in the harbor; if waterfront and water.oriented property were to be considered, then all of it should be included. Acting Community Development Director Hewicker asked Acting City Attorney O'Neil for a dlarifica- tion regarding the non - conformity of a building over 35 feet in height if this ordinance.were to be adopted. Acting City Attorney O'Neil replied that if the ordinance were adopted limiting the height of structures to 35 feet,.any building over 35 feet would be nonconforming and would then come under Chapter 20.44 and would require a use permit to expand. However,.he stated that the entire . property would not be considered nonconforming and a developer could build-a-new structure under 35 feet in height without a use permit. Mr. Lou Kaa, Assistant Administrator of Hoag Hospital addressed the Commission and stated he had worked with this group for the past year and the hospital had worked with the Building Depart- ment and Department of Public Works for over.two years and are within two weeks of embarking upon construction in excess of $11,000,000. Anything that would be. detrimental to this venture would certainly be detrimental to the ability of Hoag Hospital to provide the quality of medical care that the community deserves. The Commission inquired whether or not a building permit had been issued to the hospital for the tower covered under Use Permit 1421 and were in- formed that it had not. Mr..Kaa stated they are at a point with the Public.Works Department resolv- ing one item for the issuance of the permit and for signing the necessary grant documents and right -of -way documents to the City of Newport Beach for the entrances and the dedication of Hospital. . Road. Upon being questioned, Acting Community Development Director Hewicker informed the Commission``that if the 35 foot height limit were imposed on this property the building permit could not be issued Page 4., COMMISSI _gNERS fl' N f0 ,a &L CALL -5mO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX and even if the permit -were issued, and construction had not been commenced,.:(or. :i.f.the pouring of concrete for the foundations had not been com- menced), the permit would have to be revoked. Mr. Allan Beek addressed.; -the Commission and stated he was in agreement with all the speakers who pre- ceded him in thinking the .ordinance should apply to all of the city with possibly certain judicious exceptions. Some of the places where he was most anxious to have:the limit applied were outside of the current Civic District, such as the Dunes and the trailer park area north of the Coast Highway on the west side of the Upper Bay, since he did not think property has to be on the waterfront to be water oriented, The group he represented would, therefore; like to recommend that the City adopt a city wide ordinance with exceptions they feel would be appropriate; the list prepared by the staff had every one of his groups' exceptions as well as places-where-he,-personally, would not care to see exceptibns. Upon being questioned as to whether he was speaking for .Newport Residents United, he replied only as concerning his comments on the draft ordi,'ances.pr.esented since he had made a number of,points which were solely his own view. The Commission discussed -the proposed amendments at length and Commissioner Martin asked that the record show that his action -at the last meeting did not intend to;. "kill "..the..Civic District Committee; that was.,not -his intention at all. He stated that he had moved for the introduction of this ordinance at the meeting of August 19, 197 to provide an "umbrella" to :effectively provide equal provisions acrpss the entire city in order to allow time for thq Civie.District Committee to proceed with their work.and: finish their develop- ment guidelines a,nd Hopefully, within 3 or 4 month , they would have their standards ready and the one year ban could be lifted. He stated further that he felt hospitals and industrial facilities should be excluded from the ordinance. There was a lengthy discussion as to whether the ordinance should apply to specific uses or geo- graphical locations and Acting City Attorney O'Neil stated he believed the ordinance would be better if drafted to limit geographical areas rather than limiting the use as there would be some difficulty in the definition of "use" and it would probably lead to some abiguity. Page 5. COMMISSIONERS y � N (D y �m or s CALL �� SN mm� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX Following further discussion, Commissioner Hazewinkel made the following motion: "That the area include the area of the original Civic District plus the perimeter of the Back Bay, plus the Bayside Drive realignment, plus the trailer park property, being that property on the west side of Upper Newport Bay north of Coast Highway-and then following the rear lines of the properties fronting on Coast Highway below the bluff, to include the Arches property; then proceeding west of Newport Boulevard along the boundary line between the State owned property and the Cagney - Scholz property; then along the bottom of the bluff across the Banning property to the municipal boundary, south to Coast Highway and along the Coast Highway to Newport Shores ". Commissioner Glass seconded the motion but the Commission did not vote at this point in the proceedings. Upon being questioned as.to this being a proper legal vehicle for establishing a Civic District, Acting City Attorney O'Neil replied that a Civic • District was not being-established; this would be a height limitation zone ordinance; that general- ities were being discussed but if all the Commis- sioners were in agreement, then he could take that area and reduce it to legal.terms and put that into the ordinance, and that when it went to the City Council, they would have the correct legal descrip- tion. It was pointed out that the Civic District Ordinanc itself which was presented to the Commission on August 19, 1971 was under appeal and would go to the Council at the same meeting as this amendment. Commissioner Glass stated he did not know whether or not it was proper, since he had seconded the motion that had been made for approval, but he would like to amend his second to include the porti n of the unlimited height area in the Bluffs, which is on top of the bluff and would suggest that it be made a part of the original motion. Commissioner Hazewinkel stated that-he would include this area in his original motion, Commissioner Glass seconded No vote was taken at.this.time. Further discussion ensued.and Commissioner Agee Ision x made a substitute motion that the 35 foot height Second x limit apply to all areas in the city, south of Ayes x x Palisades Road, with the exception of Hoag Hospital Noes x x x x This motion was seconded by Commissioner Martin and Abstain x failed to carry. Page 6. COMM I OLL CAL_ Motion Second Ayes Noes Abstain • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX Following this, Chairman,Dosh- called for a roll x call vote on the original-,motion made by Commis - x sioner Hazewinkel, as amended, seconded by Commis - x x x x x sioner Glass. The motion carried by a vote of 5 t x 1. x Commissioner Adkinson returned to the dais. Item 3. Request for a 2 year extension of a use permit USE which allows the operation of a beer parlor estab - .PERMIT lishment within 200 feet of an "R" District. NU77T8 Location: Lot 1, Block 220, Section A, Tract DENIED 814, located at 2000 West Balboa Boulevard, at the northwest corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 20th Street. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Mary Caruso (The Place), Newport Beac Owner: Dr. Ackerman, Newport Beach Acting Community Development Director Hewicker presented the application to the Commission and noted that as he had explained at the Planning Commission meeting on August 19, 1971, this had originally been considered by the Modifications Committee, referred.to:.the Planning Commission to. consider the question of parking, denied, appealed to the City Council-and referred back to the Plan- ning Commission. Also; as: explained at that meet- ing, there were two issues.involved; one, the feeling of the Planning Commission that this parti- cular use at this location:was no longer compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and the general.feeling of the City Council regarding parking. This request had been continued from the meeting -of August 19th for the benefit of the various parties involved to give the staff an opportunity,to notify the attorneys representing them. Mr. Hewicker reviewed with the Commission the conditions recommended by the staff should the Commission consider approval of this application. Chairman Dosh pointed out that the question before the Commission was simply the extension of the use permit for the operation of a beer parlor within Page 7. COMMISSIONERS Y y a y K l • OLL CALL y a F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX 200 feet of a residential district. If approved, it would then be subject to certain recommendation of the Commission and the staff. A discussion ensued as to whether the use permit could be tied to the operator; Acting City Attorne O'Neil stated he was of the opinion it would be improper legally to attached a condition to the use permit pertaining solely to the applicant. If it became a police problem with a subsequent owner, then other remedies would have to be applie , such as revocation of the business license or revo cation of the use permit. Mr. David Sills, attorney for the applicant addressed the Commission and stated that he would like to address his remarks both to the question of parkin and use and hopefully clarify the points of con- fusion that had arisen during the long and various hearings. First, regarding parking, if one were to look at a map of "The Place ", a parking lot exists next to it and the question of who has the right to use that parking facility, Mary Caruso or the Beach Ball Restaurant (Item 4 on the agenda) is presently being litigated in Superior Court. Mary Caurso had always felt that it was her park- ing lot and did so at the time she purchased "The Place "; it was news to her to learn that her parking lot was the off -site parking for the "Beach Ball Restaurant ". Mr. Sills stated further. that he could not guarantee that a solution on the pending litigation would be- quick; some compro- mise had been attempted to be.worked out with the staff but to date, no successful compromise betwee the "Beach Ball" and "The.Place" had been effected. Mr. Sills further pointed:out.that whether or not Mary Caruso could stay in.business not only de- pended on whether or not she.had a use permit, but also on the conditions of that use permit. Upon being questioned as to what occupancy would be economically successful, Mr. Sills checked with Mr . Caruso and replied possibly.a maximum of 70, although`it would very seldom reach that figure, varying from 2 to 60, depending on the season. Mr. Sills was questioned further as to whether Dr. Ackerman owned the property and replied that the actual fee owner is a couple named Ireland; Dr. Ackerman has a 25 year lease on the property and Mary Caruso has a 5 year lease with a 5 year option to renew; however, the legal description is so vague that the question before the court now is to determine what, in fact, she did lease. There Page 8. COMMISSIONERS v x w OL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX are 3 lots there as far as the legal description is concerned. Mr. James Mitchell, an attorney.representing Dr. Ackerman addressed the Commission..and stated he ha attended several-staff-meetings in= connection with this application and actually the question of whether the use was compatible with the area had not been raised until this evening. The discussions with the staff had related only to parking. Regar - ing the compatibility of the use, there had been n police problems with "The Place "; also there were other establishments along Balboa Boulevard serving liquor within 200 feet of residential districts So this did not seem to be an unusual situation. As far as "The Place" was concerned, it had been operating without a parking lot of its own for approximately 8 years. Mary Caruso had been there for approximately 2 years; she did have a lease an as stated earlier, there was a suit in Superior Court as to whether or not, along with the building, she leased some parking. The parking area in • question was never paved or developed for parking until it was developed in connection with the "Beach Ball "; essentially "The Place" had always operated without a parking lot of its own.. He stated further that Mr. Rager tied up the property immediately following his development of the "Beach Ball" and not while he was operating "The Place "; Dr. Ackerman acquired the lease from Mr. Rager. The Commission questioned Acting Community Develop- ment Director Hewicker as to whether the staff had researched the files to determine.whether parking was mentioned when the original use permit was granted 8 years ago. Mr. Hewicker read into the record the action of the Planning Commission on February 21, 1963; the only condition attached to the use permit was that it be approved for a period of one year and parking was not mentioned. Upon being questioned further as to whether parking had been mentioned at the time of the previous exten- sions, Mr. Hewicker replied that the question of parking was not raised until the request for exten- sion came before the Modifications Committee in February of.this. year and since that body did not have the authority to place conditions on a use permit which had previously been approved by the Planning Commission, it was referred to the Commis- sion to attach those conditions and at that time the attention of the Commission was drawn to the question as to whether or not this was a compatible Page 9. COMMISSLQNERS 9 � O � � CALL �� N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX use in the neighborhood and was-subsequently denie and appealed to the City Council.. The Commission had never placed parking :.requirements on the prope ty and no mention of parking was made prior to this year when it was the recommendation of.the Modific - tions Committee and staff. The parking ,ratio for 70 people would be 24 spaces. Following a discussion, Commissioner Glass made a motion that the use permit be extended for a perio of one year without parking requirements, at the end of which time the Superior Court decision pertaining to the legal ownership of the parking lot be brought back to the Commission, and at that time the Commission could make a determination re- garding the parking requirements for "The Place ". This motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. George Rager addressed the Commission and stated that the parking lot adjacent to "The Place' was built in response to a requirement by the Com- mission in order for him to open a bar and restau- rant on the Ocean Front. This happened approximat ly 8 months after Mrs. Caruso acquired "The Place "; all previous owners had no parking there for two reasons; first of all, physically it was just sand and anyone that pulled in needed a tow truck to get out, and second, the Ireland's, who still own the property would never agree to lease the other lot in conjunc- tion with "The Place ". When he became involved, h became the holder of the master lease for 25 years and when he appeared �efore the Commission, it was determined that if he provided the parking lot, even though it was not adjacent to his operation, it would provide "X" number of spaces for people trying to park in the area. A discussion ensued regarding the use of the prop- erty during the past 8 years and it was pointed out, in all fairness to the.present owner, that during the past 8 to 9 months.there had been no particular problems, but inasmuch as the use permit runs with the land and .Mrs. Caruso could sell the business, the problems could again arise. The changing aspect of the nei-ghborhood from commercial Motion x to residential was also discussed, and the applica- Second x tion was denied on the basis of being incompatible �es x x x x with the residential character of the neighborhood. es x x x Acting Community Development Director Hewicker questioned the Acting City Attorney whether it would be necessary for the applicant to pay another appeal fee since this application had been referred Page 10. COMMISSIPNERS N s OL CALL ° s 3 E Motion cond 1 Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX to the Commission by the City Council, and it was the determination of the..Acting.City.Attorney that due to the circumstances of this particular case, the applicant would have.:to.appeal.the Commission' decision again to the ..City Council but another appeal fee would not be necessary. Item 4. Request to permit a reduction in.required off- AMENDMEN street parking spaces from 20 spaces..to 11 spaces T-07-ST- for the "Beach Ball" bar and restaurant. PERMIT Ni460. Location: Lot 5, Block 21, Newport Beach Tract, located at 2116 West Ocean Front, on CONDITIOI the north side of West Ocean Front between 21st Place and 22nd Street. APPROVED Zone: C -1 Applicant: George L. Rager, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant Acting Community Development Director Hewicker ex- plained the background of this application to the Commission and the basis on which the applicant was seeking a reduction in the parking requirement. Mr. George Rager addressed.the Commission and stated they had not marked off the 6 spaces for employees and had not revised the striping to conform with City requirements because-the problem with "The Place" came up and they were advised that possibly there might be some compromise between "The Place" and the "Beach Ball ". However, since the problem . had not been resolved,.he decided to apply for the reduction as he had not...been allowed to operate the parking lot as the-City would like him to and he had not been issued.a business permit this year. He noted further that it was his intention to create.as many legal parking spaces as possible and to use those above the amount required for the "Beach Ball" as a commercial parking lot. Following a discussion as to the number of spaces x the lot could actually accommodate, it was moved that X 11 parking spaces be provided for the "Beach Ball ", striped to City standards, 6 of which shall be marked for employees.of the "Beach Ball" restaurant, and that any spaces available above the required 11 spaces that met city standards could be used for commercial parking purposes. Page 11. COMMISSIONERS v s N F O N N N N� N V''c � S &L CALL w s 3 • Motion Second All Ayes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX Chairman Dosh called a short recess.and the Commis sion reconvened at 11:25 with all members present. Amendment to Title 20.of. the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code adding standards for.the development of Automobile Service Stations, outlining use permit procedures and providing for the improvement of existing stations which would become nonconforming Item 5. AMENDMENT -NT.—T§-- CONTINUED UN�ff_ 3 El''� 16 Zoning Administrator Laycock reviewed this pro- posed amendment with the Commission and showed slides of various stations throughout the City, some with no landscaping, too many signs, outside tire display, outside telephone booths and other miscellaneous problems. He also showed slides of well maintained, landscaped stations with a minimu of signs. Mr. George Perlin, who owns the Arco Station at 412 East Balboa Boulevard addressed the Commission and stated he felt the ordinance was too discrimin- atory against service stations and that certain portions of it should apply to all businesses in Newport Beach. He felt the ordinance, as proposed, needed reexamination. Mr. Joe Stransky of Western Oil and Gas Associatio addressed the Commission regarding his letter whit the Commission had before them and stated he felt a study session regarding this matter would be of benefit not only to the service station operators but also to the city and he asked that the matter be continued. Mr. Jack Barnett of the Chamber of Commerce ad- dressed the Commission and stated they had called a number of service station people and they would li e to have another session with the staff to iron out some of the problems prior to action on this matter. X Amendment No. 299 was continued until September 16th X and Mr. Laycock was asked to arrange a meeting with the people concerned for another study session. Item 6. Request to permit the subdivision of 0.769 acres RESUBDIVI- into two parcels for use as office and parking lot. —SION 14 Location: Portion of Block 54 of Irvine's Sub- division, located at 1950 West Coast NUED LTI Page 12. 16 COMMISSIONERS � N � 3 �. �L CALL t� Motion Second Al Aye< CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX Highway on the northerly side of West Coast Highway easterly of Tustin Avenue. Zone: C -1 -H and "U" Applicant: Balboa Bay Club, Newport Beach Engineer: Raub, Bein, Frost & Assoc., Costa Mes Owner: Same as applicant. Zoning Administrator Laycock presented this applica- tion to the Commission. There was a discussion as to whether or not a curb, gutter and sidewalk should be required along this property inasmuch as there was quite a lot of foot traffic along this portion of Coast Highway and this was the only property.without a sidewalk in the area. Assistant City Engineer Perry was questioned as to whether a sidewalk could be put along this unim- proved area, and he stated it would have to be deferred until the Public Works Department had an opportunity to look at the property. x Resubdivision No. 314 was continued until Septembe x 16, 1971. Item 7. Request to permit a private school in an R -3 -B USE District. PERMIT NO. 1546 .Location: Portion of Block.96 of Irvine's Subdivisiorr,.located at 3443 Pacific CONDITIO- View Drive on the southerly side of ALLY Pacific View Drive, easterly of ATITkTVED Marguerite Avenue. Zone: R -3 -B Applicant: Harbor Day School,.Corona del Mar Owner: Same as applicant. Zoning Administrator Laycock presented this applic - tion to the Commission and answered questions re- garding it. Page 13. COMMISSIONERS N 2 0 £ y C L C N N S Ja fi OOIL CALL � a m i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX Mr. William Blurock, Architect, represented the Harbor Day School and stated t.hey.had resubmitted landscape plans which were now in conformity with the staff recommendations. He questioned Condition No. 6 regarding landscaping the center divider strip in San Joaquin Hills-Road since there was an Edison Company easement between the subject property and the street,.and they had no access to San Joaquin Hills Road. If it were a require- ment, however, they would conform. Acting Community Development Director Hewicker noted that if this area were not landscaped by the adjoining property owner, it would not not be landscaped at all. The right -of -way existing on the southerly side of San Joaquin Hills Road would eventually be improved and.would include the northerly side, and although the landscaping would not have to go in at the present time, there would be a need for landscaping after the road improve- ments were completed. �tion x Use Permit Application No. 1546 was approved, econd x subject to the following conditions: All Ayes 1. The landscape plans, as submitted, be amended to provide for suitable ground cover within the Southern California Edison Company easement adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road. 2. That an adequate number of bicycle storage racks be provided. 3. All illumination shall be shielded or directed so as to. confine direct rays to the subject property. 4. That a separa.te.plan. showing the details of the water service connection in Pacific View Drive and the sewer lateral connec- tion in San Joaquin Hills Road be sub- mitted to the Public.:Works Department for review and approval. 5. That parkway trees be planted along the Pacific View Drive frontage in accordance . with the requirements and specifications of the Parks, Beaches-and Recreation Department; that the standard street tree inspection fee of $3 per tree be paid; and that a satisfactory parkway sprinkler system be installed.., Page 14. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH *L CALL • E MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX 6. That separate arrangements be made with the Parks, Beaches-and Recreation Depart- ment for the future planting.of parkway trees and installation.of a parkway sprinkler system along the San Joaquin Hills Road frontage:::. 7. That a 20- foot.wide..storm.drain easement be dedicated to.the City:covering the new 42 -inch R.C.P. storm drain that was con-, structed recently in conjunction with the site grading. 8. That no trees or large shrubs be planted in the existing 15 -foot wide water ease- ment of the 20 -foot wide storm drain ease - ment required in the previous condition of approval. 9. That no surface and landscaping improve- ments be placed in the 15 -foot wide water easement along the northeasterly edge of the site until the 16 -inch "Zone IV" water main proposed for construction by the City in the near future has been completed. Item 8. Request to permit a 220 room, 12 story (plus mezza -USE nine) hotel to be constructed as part of "The PERMIT Newport Project ". X1547 Location: Lot 4, Tentative Map Tract 7382, CONTINUE located at the southwesterly corner o UNTIL MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. TETi- 16 Zone: P -C Applicant: Emkay Development Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant Zoning Administrator Laycock.presented the applica- tion to the Commission..noting that the proposed hotel does meet all of the P -C District require- ments, but the staff felt some of the off - street parking spaces might be too far away from the hotel complex itself. Acting Community Development Director Hewicker pointed out that the conditions of approval Page 15. COMMISSIONERS v s w s N N N N N£ 3 5 CALL a< v m s 3 'Potion Second All Ayes • Motion Second All Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX actually numbered 25; 10 conditions.which would be attached to the resubdivision, an additional 9 areas of consideration.covered.in_ the P -C text, and 6 additional conditions.. He noted further tha the Airport Commission had approved this project and read into the record a..note from the Airport Land Use Commission who had reviewed this project earlier.in the evening. Mr. Ernest Wilson, Architect for Emkay Development Company was present and.answered questions of the Commission. Mr. Alex Bowie, Attorney, read into t e record a portion of the transcript of the November meetings when the P -C zone.for this development was approved by the Commission.. Mr. John Hill of New York, Architect with Edward Durell Stone, was present and answered questions.of the Commission. Mr. Bob Alleborn of Emkay Development Company was also present and addressed the Commission. Following a discussion, principally regarding the placement of the building on the lot in relation to the parking and a question as to the height of x the building, the application was continued until x September 16, 1971 to give.the applicants an opportunity to amend their plans and also to give the Commission an opportunity to review the record- ings of the November meetings regarding the build- ing height. Item 9. Request to permit the subdivision of 8.98 acres RESUBDIVI into two lots for development as a hotel and commercial use. SION NU_._T13 Location: Portion of-Block 50 of Irvine's Sub- CONTINUED division, located:at the southwesterly UN corner of MacArthur Boulevard and PT. 16 Birch Street. Zone: P -C Applicant: Emkay Development Co., Newport Beach Engineer: Raub, Bein, Frost & Assoc., Costa Mesa Owner: Same as applicant. Since this application is the site for the hotel x proposed under the previous application, it was x continued until September 16, 1971 Page 16. COMMISSIONERS r s w N 0 AcD 0L CALL �� Motion Second All Ayes • Motion Second All Ayes �J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 2, 1971 INDEX x x The Commission asked that the ord.er.of hearings for the September 16, 1971 meeting be as follows:. Items 8, 9, 5 and 6 on this evening's agenda to be Items 1, 2, 3, 4. Request to permit an apartment:to be constructed over an office building (proposed) in a C -1 District. Location: Lot 3, Block B., Tract 470, Corona del Mar, located at 2419 East Coast Item 10. USE PERMIT NO. 1548 CONTINUED UNTIL Highway on the southerly side of EP's 16 East Coast Highway between Begonia Avenue and Carnation Avenue. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Robert A. Hedloff, Corona del Mar Owner: William P. Bruce, Corona del Mar Due to the lateness of the hour, the applicant had x left and this item was continued until September x 16, 1971. Item 11. Request to permit the expansion of an existing USE cultural center which will include a research PERMIT library, a flower garden and tea garden, and an N77549 art gallery. CONDITION - Location: Lots 1 thru,.5,.B1..ock.D, Tract 323 and -ALLY Y— Lots l thru<8.and_.10, 12 and 14, APP7DED Block 632, Corona-del Mar Tract, located at..614:Dahlia Avenue, bounded by Dahlia Av.enue,:East Coast Highway, Fernleaf Avenue and Third Avenue. Zone: C -1 and R 72 Applicant: William Blurock & Partners, Corona del Mar Owner: Sherman Foundation Center, Corona del Mar Mr. William Blurock and Mr. Alvan Clemente were present and displayed renderings of the proposed Page 17. COMMISSIONERS y z N � *L CALL F s fDS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX project. They asked that Condition No. 4 of the staff recommendations.requiring . a 4 foot wide sidewalk be amended in order.to save two trees along Third Avenue. The.Commission agreed to changing this condition to-read "that a sidewalk shall be installed along..Third Avenue in a manner which will protect the two existing trees and meet the specifications of the Public Works Department ". A discussion ensued regarding the amount of on -sit parking and parking .. on the street. It was pointed out by the applicant's representatives that it was unlikely that there would ever be a full occupant capacity at any one time; also since the project encompasses an entire square block, it was logical to assume that the on- street parking would be used by the patrons of the cultural center. Following a discussion, during which the Commissio noted that this project was an addition to the Motion x neighborhood, the application was approved subject Second x to the following conditions: •1 Ayes 1. The development shall compl.y.with the plans as submitted except for minor modifications which may be approved by the Director of Community Development. 2. That there be no drive approaches on East Coast Highway,.or within 100 feet of East Coast Highway on Dahlia or Fernleaf Avenues. 3. That unused curb cuts be .closed up, . sidewalk replaced, and parkway landscaping, including street trees, installed. 4. That a sidewalk shall be installed along Third Avenue in a manner which will pro- tect the two existing trees and meet the specifications of the Public Works Department. 5. The area between the proposed 3 foot high masonry wall and Third .Avenue, and the planters on Dahlia and Fernleaf Avenues adjacent to the off - street parking area shall be landscaped and permanently main- . tained. 6. All illumination in the off - street parking area shall be shielded or directed so as to confine direct rays to the subject property. Page 18. COMMISSI9NERS a 0L CALL Motion cond 1 Aye • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 2, 1971 MINUTES INDEX Amend the Planned Community Regulations for Upper Harbor View Hills; specifically.pertaining to the Item 12. AMENDMENT N�_._37U_— parking requirements, sign..requi.rements, and commercial community facilities within the multi- CONTINUED family areas. UNTIL SEPT. 16 Location: Portion..of Blocks.92_and 93 of Irvine's Subdivision located gener- ally north of San Joaquin Hills Road, east of existing MacArthur Boulevard and south of Ford Road. Zone: P -C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant. The applicants were not present due to the late- x ness of the hour so this application was continued x until September 16, 1971. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** On motion of Commissioner Adkinson, seconded by Commissioner Glass, and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 1:35 A.M., September 3, 1971. ac�ther, Secretary Newport Beach City Planning Commission Page 19.