Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1986COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers y G 006'.'6 TIME: 7:30 p.m. ZDATE: September 18, 1986 o�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x x x All Commissioners were present. • a ,t EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x Minutes of September 4, 1986: Minutes of Motion x Motion was made to approve the September 4, 1986, 9 -4 -86 All Ayes Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. r * x Request for Continuances: Request James Hewicker, Planning Director, recommended that for Item No. 9, Amendment No. 638 and Traffic Study, a Continuance request to amend the Newport Place Planned _Community Development Standards, be removed from calendar as requested by the applicant, and to renotice the public hearing for the December 4, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion voted on to remove Item No. 9, Amendment No. 638 All Ayes and Traffic Study, from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 18, 1986 INDEX A. General Plan Amendment No. 86 -2 (C) (Public Hearing) IItem No.l Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to reclassify a single parcel of land from "Two - Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial." INITIATED BY:, The City of Newport Beach AND B. Request to consider an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, so as to reclassify the subject property from "Two - Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial." INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach t. C. Amendment No. 639 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, so as to reclassify the subject property from "Two - Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial." The proposal also includes a request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 8 so as to reclassify said property from SP -6 (R -2) to SP -6. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 130, Lake Tract, located at 3014 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northeasterly side of West Balboa Boulevard, between 31st Street and 32nd Street, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. APPLICANT: Fluter Development Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with these • items and Mr. Russell Fluter, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that he concurs with the recommendations as proposed by staff. The public hearing was closed at this time. -2- GPA 86 -2(C� Resolution No. 1145 LCP Amend. No. 10 Resolution No. 1146 Amend. No. 639 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1145 recommending to the City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 86 -2(C); to adopt Resolution No. 1146 recommending the approval of Amendment No. 10 to the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and recommend the approval of Amendment No. 639 to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Motion voted on, All Ayes MOTION CARRIED. Final Map of Tract No. 12209 (Discussion) Request to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 12209 subdividing 5.978 acres of land into 43 numbered lots for detached single family residential purposes; 5 lettered lots for private open space and landscaping purposes; and 1 lettered lot for private street pur- poses. • LOCATION: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Sub- division, located at 6000 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway at Fifth Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Real Estate Development Corporation, Tustin OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: -Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short, Inc., Santa Ana Mr. Pat Hayes, President of Real Estate Development Corporation, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hayes answered that he has read and is familiar with the terms of the Point Del Mar Planned Community text and he stated that all future plans submitted to the City shall comply Owith the terms and conditions of the subject text. n Motion was made to approve Final Map of Tract No. 12209 All Ayes subject to the finding and condition in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -3- INDEX Item No.2 Final Map of Tract No 12209 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y�Gyc^yc^yGyQo� September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX FINDING: 1. That the Final Map of Tract No. 12209 substan- tially conforms to the approved Tentative Map and with all changes permitted and all requirements imposed as conditions to its acceptance. CONDITION: - 1. That all remaining conditions of approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209 (Revised) shall be fulfilled. x x x Exception Permit No. 24 (Discussion) Item No.3 Request to permit the installation of four specialty Exception wall signs in addition to the existing wall identifi- Permit cation signs for Hughes Market, located in the West- No. 24 • cliff Plaza Shopping Center in the C -0 -H District. Approved LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 46 -43 (Resub- division No. 358), located at 1150 Irvine Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue, between Westcliff Drive and Mariners Drive, in the West - cliff Plaza Shopping Center. ZONE: C -0 -H APPLICANT: John Howenstine, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach There being no one desiring to appear and be heard, Motion x motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. 24, All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed signs will be compatible with surrounding land uses. . 2. That the proposed signs will not have any signifi- cant environmental impact. -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y�Gy c^y c^yGy °AAgs September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. The proposed signage and graphics are consistent with the character and design of the Fashion Island Shopping Center. 4. That the proposed signs are intended to be tempo- rary in nature. 5. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code, and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neigh- borhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and elevation. 2. That the applicant shall obtain building permits for the proposed signs prior to their installa- tion. 3. That the proposed signs shall be removed within 24 months of the date of installation or within 30 .days after the completion of the proposed parking structure, whichever date comes first, unless an extension is approved by the Modifications Commit- tee. 4. That the signs shall comply with Standard Drawing 110 -L and shall be subject to the further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. x x +r Resubdivision No. 834 (public Hearing) Item No. 4 Request to resubdivide the subject property into two parcels of land for single family residential develop- R834 ment and eliminate interior property lines where one lot and portions of two other lots presently exist. Approved . The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivi- sion Code so as to allow the creation of parcels which are less than 5,000 square feet in area and less than 50 feet in width. -5- COMMISSIONERS 0 n Ayes MINUTES September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: Lot 673 and portions of Lots 672 and 674, Tract No. 907, located at 221 via Koron, on the northwesterly side of Via Koron, between Via Lido Nord and Piazzo Lido, on Lido Isle. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. Robert H. Andrews, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER: Duca- McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, recommended that Condition No. 8 be added to Exhibit "A ", stating "that all structures within the required 3 foot side yard setbacks between Parcels No. 1 and 2 shall be removed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map." Mr. Laycock explained that a patio cover crosses the new property line and is attached to the existing structure; therefore, the patio cover should be removed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert H. Andrews, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Andrews stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A "; however, he questioned the recommended Condition No., 8. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the purpose of the recommended condition is that when the new parcel is created there should not be any structural encroachments over the new common property line onto the new parcel; however, there would be no problem if the parcel remains under the same ownership. Mr. Hewicker further explained that the applicant may list the second parcel on the real estate market, and when the parcel is sold, then the parcel could be recorded prior to the close of escrow. Mr. Andrews concurred with the addition of Condition No. 8. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 834 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the addition of Condition No. 8 stating "that U-M INDEX COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 18, 1986 =ROLL CALL I I I J i l l I I INDEX • all structures within the required three foot side yard setbacks between Parcels No'. 1 and 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the Parcel Map." Motion voted on, 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 there are special circumstances affecting the property since each of the new parcels to be created will be no smaller than parcels estab- lished by the original subdivision of the area. 4. That the proposed parcels are similar in size to other parcels in the vicinity of the subject property. 5. That the granting of the requested exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 6. That if the exception were denied, the petitioner would be deprived of a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the area. 7. 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 subdivi- sion. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits to permit a second dwelling unit on the property unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and Public Works Depart- ment. -7- COMMISSIONERS • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2 MINUTES September 18, 1986 That all improve ents be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangement's 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 build - ing permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the tree- damaged sidewalk be reconstructed along the Via Koron frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public.Works Department. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. S. That all structures within the required three foot side yard setbacks between Parcels No. 1 and 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the Parcel Map. Use Permit No. 3228 (Public Hearing)_ Request to permit the construction of a "granny unit" on property located in the R -1 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow three boxed windows on the second floor which encroach 6 inches into a required 3 foot side yard setback and one box window which encroaches 1 foot into the required 5 foot rear yard setback. LOCATION:_ Lot 23, Block 243, Corona del Mar, located at 323 Poppy Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Poppy Avenue, between Seaview Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. M-M INDEX Item No.5 UP3228 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y�Gy t"y t^,gGy Qo n�, September 18, 1986 Gp Ztn �O yi �9 F Fy y9 y`�yGC ;y� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Joseph A. and Betty Giannini, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Lynn appeared before the Planning Commission representing the applicant, wherein he stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman referred to Condition No. 4 which states "that the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or two • adults over the age of 60 years" and stated that the subject Condition is similar to Use Permit No. 3143, Condition No. 7 that was approved by the Planning Commission on April 18, 1985, except that Condition No. 7 contained the following additional wording: "and committing the permittee and successors to comply with ordinances regarding Granny Units that may be adopted in the future ". In response to Commissioner Koppelman's inquiry regarding. the reason for the difference in the two conditions, Mr. Hewicker replied that an Ordinance regarding Granny Units had been proposed and was approved by the Planning Commission; however, the City Council did not approve the Ordinance. He commented that the City has received few requests for Granny Units; therefore, there may not be a need for an Ordinance. Commissioner Winburn explained that because the Planning Commission could not foresee the number of Granny Unit applications in the future, and the Planning Commission had a concern to commit the property owner and successors to comply with future requirements, City Attorney Burnham recommended said addition to Condition No. 7, Use Permit No. 3143. Commissioner Koppelman commented that under the aforementioned circumstances that she would request that Condition No. 4 be amended to state % ...and -9- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion *yes • MINUTES September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH committing the permittee and successors to comply with ordinances regarding Granny Units that may be adopted in the future." The public hearing was reopened at this time, and Mr. Lynn reappeared before the Planning Commission to state his approval of modified Condition No. 4. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve. Use Permit No. 3228 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 4. Commissioner Person commented that he would support the motion; however, he requested that the Granny Units be monitored periodically for the purpose as indicated by State Law, that the Granny Units would not change an R -1 District to an R -2 District, and that the Granny Units would be in.compliance with the Municipal Code. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3228 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including amended Condition No. 4. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan, the Land Use Element of the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements. 3. That the proposed window encroachments within the required side and rear yard setbacks are minor architectural features, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimen- tal to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the approval of said encroachment is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Zoning Code. -10- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 18, 1986 m9 9 9 P y Gy W �y � y ` °pop �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3228 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimen- tal to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations except as noted below. 2. That the second dwelling shall maintain a minimum of 600 sq. ft. of floor area as required by Section 20.87.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, but shall not exceed 640 sq. ft. of floor area as provided in Section 65852.1 of the California Government Code. • 3. That the second dwelling unit shall be for rental purposes only and shall be limited to the use of one or two persons over the age of 60 years. 4. That the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and succe- ssors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or two adults 60 years of age or over, and committing the permittee and successors to comply with ordinances regarding Granny Units that may be adopted in the future. 5. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090, A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES dGy OR�9c y September 18, 1986 '�F �^y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3230 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 UP 3230 Request to establish a snack bar and food service facility within the existing Newport Lido Medical Building located in the A -P District. The proposal Approved also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road, on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, across from Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A -P APPLICANT: Park Lido Medical Center, Newport Beach OWNER: Newport Lido. Medical Center, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred to Condition No. 11 stating "that one restroom shall be provided for each sex ", and he requested that the condition be amended to state "That restroom facilities shall be provided as required by the Building Department. One additional restroom may be required ". He explained that the Building Department does require one restroom for each sex; however, there may be an additional restroom on another floor that may be available. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that the snack bar and food service facility will have three employees; will be self - serving; will be primarily for on -site employees; that the food will be prepared on the premises; and that there will be seating available for approximately 40 customers. Mr. King further commented that the applicant is attempting to reduce the traffic in the area by providing the food service to employees. • In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. King explained that the majority of the food prepared at the subject facility will be consumed on -site, and the. remaining customers will take their food to their offices. -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 18, 1986 INDEX The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I I I I Ixl I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3230 subject All Aye to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Condition No. 11. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS:- 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities, and a portion of the required number of parking spaces, will not • be detrimental to adjoining properties. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3230 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and a portion of the required number of parking spaces shall be waived. 3. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. • 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 5. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed use. -13- COMMISSIONERS d'A 9 99 ,oS - 9Z�Z GZ �C90 fZS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 18, 1986 ROL CALL INDEX 6. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be provided in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 7. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the take -out restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. B. That a washout area for the take -out restaurant trash containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjacent streets, and adjoining properties. • 10. That one parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area in the food service facility (i.e. 4 parking spaces). 11. That restroom facilities shall be provided as required by the Building Department. One additional restroom may be required. 12. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x ♦ r i -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA gm��fGZ�0% September 18, 1986 9 m4A9Z ,oti G9 Zen NO Zi (v t� mZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1133 (Continued Public Hearing) Item N0.7 Request to permit the construction of a single family V1133 dwelling on property located in the R -1 District which exceeds the basic 24 foot height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District; and the acceptance of Approved an environmental document. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot front yard setback area. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 188 -1 (Resub- division No. 750), located at 2301 Pacific Drive, on the southwesterly side of Pacific Drive, between Acacia Avenue and Begonia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 - APPLICANT: Richard L. Cooling, Newport Beach . OWNER: Harry E. Westover, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, stated that of the eight lots abutting the subject property, six lots have building encroachments into the required 5 foot front yard setback on Pacific Drive. He commented that structures on the subject lots maintain the following setbacks from their respective front property lines: 2231 Pacific Drive - 2 feet, 4 inches ±; 2235 Pacific Drive - 3 feet, 4 inches ±; 2305 Pacific Drive - 1 foot ±; 2315 Pacific Drive - on the front property line; 2319 Pacific Drive - also on the front property line; and 2329 Pacific Drive - 1 foot, 10 inches ±. Mr. Laycock explained that' the subject structure will be 19 feet from the Pacific Drive sidewalk if the revised plans are approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Laycock indicated that only 4.95 percent of the proposed structures will exceed the permitted height limit. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Laycock replied that the aforementioned building encroachments do not appear to be new dwellings. He said that the dwelling on property located at 2235 Pacific Drive, the property directly northwesterly of the subject property, maintains a 3 foot 4 inch front yard setback, and a fence and arch encroach onto public property. -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yGAt6�00p c+ September 18, 1986 �yF� py ff O fyyc,� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. Richard Cooling, 2305 Eastbluff Drive, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cooling explained that at the Planning Commission's request the proposed dwelling was redesigned as follows: the building height was modified from a 41 foot average to a 27.5 foot average, and a 45 foot maximum building height to ; a 30 foot maximum building height; and two corners of the garage encroach into the required 5 foot front yard setback. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the possibility of redesigning the dwelling without a Variance, Mr. Cooling replied that the structure could be constructed to an allowable maximum buildable area of 5,082 square feet. He said that the proposed plan staggers the structure by going down the hill. In reference to whether or not there was a constraint against tucking the house into the hill to keep from exceeding the height limit, Mr. Cooling replied that the structure could be pulled into the hill; however, that would not be eliminating the height on the second floor. Mr. Harry E. Westover, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Westover referred to the letters of opposition regarding the proposed structure and commented that the letters would fall into several classifications: Regarding the height of the structure adjacent to Pacific Drive: Mr. Westover rebutted that the proposed 17.5 feet is under the permitted 24 foot height limitation, and the structure is split level; that there could be a build -out to the maximum going up to the allowable height; and that the neighbors do not have a vested view over private property. Elimination of the 5 foot front yard setback: Mr. Westover rebutted that even without the 5 foot front yard setback there is 19 feet between the sidewalk and the garage. The southwest corner of the structure on the hillside and the appearance of said dwelling looking up from Bayside Drive: Mr. Westover described the allowable and maximum building height that is proposed. He distributed pictures of the existing structures up the hillside from Bayside Drive, and he commented on the heights of said structures. Mr. Westover commented that Bayside Drive curves below the dwellings on Pacific Drive; therefore, each house projects at different angles on the hill. -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 18, 1986 M r \\\M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Mr. Glenn Almquist, 408 Acacia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the subject Variance and opined that the structure could be built down the hill. In response to a statement made by Commissioner Person regarding a use permit as opposed to a variance for the proposed project, Mr. Hewicker explained that a use permit was established for structures that would extend from the basic height limit to the upper height limit permitted if the applicant can meet certain specified conditions as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and he further explained that a variance would apply to unusual situations that may pertain to a particular piece of property. Mr. Hewicker commented that the subject site consists of steep topography falling away from the site, and if the applicant wanted to apply for a use permit then the application would have to be reevaluated. Chairman Turner and Commissioner Kurlander responded to the concerns Mr. Almquist had regarding the need for a • Variance of the subject project to minimize the impact. In conclusion, Mr. Hewicker commented that the subject undeveloped lot would probably require a Variance for any structure to be developed on the site. Mr. John Bettingen, 2308 Pacific Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the subject Variance and he stated his concerns: that the subject lot is not unique or unbuildable; the encroachment into the required 5 foot front yard setback on Pacific Drive; the two -story structure would present a negative affect on Pacific Drive; and the impact of private views on the inland side of Pacific Drive. Mr. Jim Bridges, 2307 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the Variance. He said. that his residence is below the subject site and he approves the proposed plans. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Person reasoned that the applicant could return with the revised plans and reapply for a use permit; that less than 5 percent of the structure exceeds the permitted height limit; that the subject property could be built to the allowable density up to • 24 feet on Pacific Drive; and that the surrounding -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 18, 1986 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion • All Ayes neighborhood will benefit from the Variance instead of allowing the applicant to build a taller structure on the top of the flat portion of the property without the requirement of a Variance. Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1133 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Chairman Turner stated that he would support the motion because the issuance of a variance will be less objectionable to the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors than a home that would be designed without a Variance or a Use Permit. Commissioner Koppelman commented that she would support the motion, and in addition to the above stated reasons, she pointed out that six of the eight lots on the same side of the street as the subject project have encroachments into the required 5 foot front yard setback. Commissioner Koppelman reasoned that the view impact of the adjacent property owner has been minimized by the redesign of the plans. Motion voted on to approve Variance No. 1133 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a unique topography which is significantly different than other lots on the upland side of Pacific Drive. 2. That the granting of a variance to exceed the permitted building height is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the topogra- phy of the site severly limits construction on the site. • 3. That the height of the structure as viewed from Pacific Drive does not exceed the height normally permissible under section 20.02.030 of the Munici- pal Code. -18 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ymGp F`p t^9G� Qa c+y September 18, 1986 Gp yin NO 9i f9.00 �- ym y <<yac y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building at the proposed height will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or 'the general welfare of the City. 5. That the proposed modification to permit the structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot front yard setback at Pacific Drive will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modi- fication is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code inasmuch as the structure • will be 19 feet from the Pacific Drive sidewalk. 6. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the bay window encroachment into a required 4 foot side yard setback shall be deleted. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the improvements. 5. That the dwelling units at 2301 and 2305 Pacific • Drive each be served with individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 18, 1986 d� ? P. py f9yfyy 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That the displaced sidewalk be reconstructed along Pacific Drive under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That all construction and landscaping within the public right of way shall be subject to the approval of the City Council and shall be conduct- ed in accordance with an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 9. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the • "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 10.. That all balcony railings shall be of open or clear glass construction. 11. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 12. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months, of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yGAt^�i��G�Qo September 18, 1986 G'yN9� F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to subdivide 1.147 acres of land into six (6) TTM12873 lots for single family residential development on property located in the R -1 District. The proposal Continued also includes: a request to approve a rough grading to plan for the purpose of establishing building pad Oct.23,1986 elevations, for the measurement of allowable building heights; the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 5 foot high retaining wall along the rear of Lot 1 which encroaches 10 feet into a required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Cliff Drive; to allow a 10 foot front yard setback on a portion of Lot 6 where a 20 foot setback would normally be required; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot A,Tract No. 919, located at 2505 Cliff Drive, on the southwesterly side of Cliff Drive, between Ocean View Avenue and El Modena • Avenue, adjacent to the Ensign View Park in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Howard Tuttle and Bob Newberry, Costa Mesa OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Brion S. Jeannette & Associates, Inc., Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Brion Jeannette, the applicants' architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeannette stated that the applicants have met with the residents on the northwesterly side of Cliff Drive and the neighbors have signed the proposed plan indicating their approval, specifically the height limit that was imposed by the applicants. Mr.* Jeannette described the plans on display of the proposed development and he pointed out that the . highest point of any structure would be 10 feet to 11 feet higher than the existing hill, or in accordance with the City's basic height limit so that the views -21- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL 0 • MINUTES September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH could be maintained from surrounding houses and to create a view corridor; that the proposed retaining wall will be no higher than one foot from the grade in the rear portion of the site adjacent to Cliff Drive; that 20 foot front yard setbacks are proposed with the exception of Lot No. 6 which will maintain a 10 foot front yard setback; and that a distance between the proposed houses will be created to allow a view plane. In response to Commissioner Winburn's request, Mr. Jeannette described the approximate front entrance of the Theater Arts Center adjacent to the proposed project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the reason for a 10 foot front yard setback on Lot No. 6,.Mr. Jeannette described the unusual shape of the lot and replied that a landscaped area is proposed and there could be a fence in said area. Mr. Hewicker responded that the landscaped area would be permitted within the 10 foot front yard setback, and in response to Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Jeannette replied that a six foot high fence may be proposed. Mr. Bob Newberry, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He submitted a letter stating the concerns of the neighbors, and the aforementioned signed plans indicating adjacent neighbors on the opposite side of Cliff Drive who have approved the proposed project. Mr. Jeannette stated that the primary concerns of the property owners on the other side of Cliff Drive are the proposed landscaping and grading between the Theater Arts Center and the subject property. The applicants met with Ron Whitley, Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, and he said that Mr. Whitley indicated that the applicants would be responsible for developing any modification of the landscaping and grading between the two parcels, and that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department would be willing to work with the applicants. Mr. Newberry also submitted a copy of Mr. Whitley's memorandum dated September 16, 1986, whereby the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department has agreed to work with the developer as it relates to the common property line in conjunction with landscaping and tree locations. Mr. Howard Tuttle, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tuttle presented a brief _22_ INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y'` oo c+ September 18, 1986 dG4Py, �s 999 .o yF, 9c^,poyC�fyy • y ` s°^� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX statement regarding the revised plans. In response to concerns posed by Chairman Turner and Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Tuttle described the proposed landscaping and retaining wall adjacent to the Theater Arts Center. Mr. John Rutan, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owners at 232 Tustin Avenue. In response to concerns that Mr. Rutan had regarding Lots No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, Mr. Jeannette reappeared _ before the Planning Commission and described the proposed grading, retaining wall, drainage, and the 10 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Rutan made further comments regarding the proposed density; that he agreed with the modification to the retaining wall; and the erosion and drainage on the adjacent Ensign View Park site. In reference to the 'available parking within the cul -de -sac area, Chairman Turner replied that there will be on -site parking and garages. Mr. Roland Lemoine, 220 Tustin Avenue, appeared before • the Planning Commission to state his concerns regarding the drainage from the proposed development to his property; that his home is adjacent to the end of the proposed cul -de -sac area and that he would be affected by the automobile noise and fumes; and that there would be no landscaping or sidewalk to separate the two sites. In . response to Chairman Turner, Mr. Jeannette reappeared before the Planning Commission and replied that the bulb of the cul -de -sac could be shifted five feet, and that he could create a landscaped area between the parcels. Commissioner Person asked if the residents of the Newport Heights Community Association and the residents of Tustin Avenue had reviewed the proposed plan. Mr. Jeannette replied that the Board of Directors had .reviewed and approved the proposed developments; however, the residents of Tustin Avenue had not been notified by the applicants. Mr. Roger Schwenk, 238 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission stating his concerns regarding the proposed project: the five foot retaining wall; the traffic from the cul -de -sac as it enters Cliff Drive; the entrance to the Theater Arts Center is closer than Mr. Jeannette estimated; and the erosion. In response to Mr. Schwenk, Mr. Hewicker replied that -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y G [+ A y September 18, 1986 o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the City requires the issuance of a grading permit that checks erosion, and Chairman Turner replied that the utilities will be underground. Mr. Schwenk referred to the Environmental Checklist Form and he stated his concerns regarding mudslides; drainage patterns wherein City Engineer Donald Webb referred to Condition No. 9 which states that a hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared and submitted for approval by the Public Works Department; parking on the cul -de -sac and that parking would be restricted'to one side of the street, wherein Mr. Webb replied that the street is proposed to be 32 feet wide; and that the bicycle lane on Cliff Drive will be crossing the entrance to the cul -de -sac. Mr. Winston verdult, 2500 Cliff Drive, appeared before - the Planning Commission supportive of the proposed development because the project would enhance the property values in the surrounding area. However, Mr. Verdult stated his concerns regarding the project and he asked that the applicants meet with the neighbors in regard to the increased density; traffic; noise; parking; loss of views; and the proposed elevation of the project. Mr. Verdult stated that the project had not been completely described to him by the applicants prior to the public hearing. In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner regarding the height limitations, Mr. Hewicker replied that the basic height limit for a flat roof structure is 24 feet above grade and a roof with a ridge has a maximum height limit up to 29 feet in an R -1 Zone,. Commissioner Person stated his concerns regarding the propriety and the location of the cul -de -sac, and that the Newport Heights Community Association Board of Directors did not meet with the residents of Tustin Avenue or residents on Cliff Drive regarding the proposed development. He advised that he' will be making a motion after the public testimony to continue this item for thirty days to allow the applicants to present this project to the residents on Tustin Avenue when those residents can be present, and also for the applicants to take another look at relocating the cul -de -sac. Commissioner Koppelman asked what the sight plane would • be on the project by lowering the elevation, and would it be possible to obtain a sight plane on this project? She also requested a view plane from the adjacent houses. -24- COMMISSIONERS CALL MINUTES September.18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Mr. Jeannette reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the applicants intend to limit the height of the houses by deed restrictions. He commented that the applicants have met with Mr. Verdult and other residents on Cliff Drive to discuss the plan, and the only signatures not obtained by the applicants to approve the plan are Mr. Verdult's and a property owner whose property is in probate. Mr. Jeannette commented that the applicants neglected to speak to Tustin Avenue property owners because the proposed development.would not have an impact on their property. In further response to Commissioner Koppelman's inquiry regarding the view plane, Mr. Jeannette replied that the view plane was established at an elevation of 91 feet; that a deed restriction has been successful on other property in. the Newport Heights area; and that the applicants intended to protect views. Mr. Jeannette described the height analysis on the project. . Mr. Tuttle reappeared before the Planning Commission and commented that he has spoken with two residents on Tustin Avenue, and he described what impact the cul -de -sac and adjoining lots would have on Mr. Lemoine's property on Tustin Avenue. Mr. Tony Shaw, 204 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission concerning the impact that the proposed development will have to Ensign View Park. Mr. Lemoine reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that his major concerns regarding the proposed cul -de -sac are the loss of privacy, automobile parking, and the adjacent garages. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, 'Mr. Lemoine commented that he had been advised by the President of the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association that the development would be constructed on the opposite side of the subject site. In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner, Mr. Lemoine replied that he is a member of the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association; however, he did not receive a notice of the aforementioned meeting. Commissioner Winburn remarked that members of the • Newport Heights Homeowner's Association have stated that they have not been notified of previous proposed developments that would affect the residents of Newport -25- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL 0 MINUTES September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Heights, and she stated her surprise that the problem is continuing to exist. Mr. Jeannette rebutted that Mr. Lemoine's son has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association and has been informed of the development in the Mariner's Mile area; that about 30 notices were mailed to the Board of Directors regarding the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association meeting, and that not many members attended from Tustin Avenue; and that the Newport Heights residents have requested that they be notified of proposed development in the Mariner's Mile area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Jeannette replied that the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association meeting was Wednesday, August 27, 1986. Commissioner Winburn stated that she will be supporting Commissioner Person's proposed motion to continue the item because there needs to be total cooperation within the community, and the proposed development is adjacent to residential property. Mr. Greg Schwenk, 238 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission making reference to Philosopher John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Land ", and he commented on the future years that he will be in residence at the subject residence. Mr. Schwenk's primary concerns are traffic; parking; density; the impact with the Theater Arts Center and Ensign View Park; and he suggested moving the cul -de -sac to the opposite side of the site. In response to questions posed by Mr. Schwenk, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant is allowed to subdivide into 5,000 square foot lots, that the density allows 8 dwelling units and the applicant is proposing 6 dwellings. He further explained that buildable acreage is derived after taking the gross buildable area and subtracting the areas that would be devoted to streets, parks, and slopes. Motion N Commissioner Person made a motion to continue the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873 to the October 23, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the applicant is not making an unreasonable request regarding zoning permitted and zoning requested; • however, he is concerned regarding the design and location of the proposed cul -de -sac in relation to the -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y G F0 4<i September 18, 1986 m9T9� ny G'pyin No 9i gf� alp CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX adjacent residents, and the impact on the neighbors residing on Tustin Avenue. Commissioner Person explained that his primary concern is the impact on the Ensign View Park and to protect the public view. He suggested that the applicants coordinate a meeting with the adjacent residents, including the residents residing on Tustin Avenue, to be certain that the proposed plan is in the best interests for the area. Commissioner Winburn suggested that the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission be informed of the proposed development and the close proximity to the Theater Arts Center. She commented that future property owners could be disturbed by patron noise during the theater's intermission. Mr. Jeannette replied that he was informed by Mr. Whitley that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission will be informed of the proposed project. Commissioner Merrill referred to the proposed cul -de -sac, and he opined that residential property • should be adjacent to other residential property, and that dropping a lot may make the proposed cul -de -sac more workable. Commissioner Merrill stated his concern regarding the allowable number of on- street parking places whereby parking is permitted on one side of the street, and the possible "spill- over" onto Cliff Drive. Commissioner Merrill asked if the City requires any documentation regarding how the private street would be maintained? Mr. Webb replied that the private street will be maintained by the proposed Homeowner's Association's CC &R's consisting of the property owners. Commissioner Merrill suggested that a condition be included legislating the private street. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion because of the aforementioned reasons, and the implications from a potential obstruction of view from the Ensign View Park on the view. Chairman Turner asked if there are any provisions required to maintain private streets in the City? Mr. Webb replied that the Real Estate Commission requires certain conditions before the lots can be sold, and that private streets have to meet certain requirements • in the way of private access to the sites. Motion voted on to continue the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873 to the October 23, 1986, Planning Commission All Ayes meeting. MOTION CARRIED. * » x -27- COMMISSIONERS sj F yAG9 �p �"9G9 ACy - \\11,1001 1, O 061r, yS y� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 18, 1986 ROL CALL INDEX A. Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Item N0.9 Amendment Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of No. 638 additional bank and office floor area in an 11 story TS building within Professional and Business Offices Site Removed No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, From and ancillary service commercial uses on the subject Calendar property. The proposal also includes the approval of a modification to the development standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor area and to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) �. Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the • construction of a 278,489 sq.ft., multi -use office building in the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183 -14 -15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place, in the ' Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport-Beac OWNER: Same as applicant Motion Motion was made to remove Amendment No. 638 and Traffic All Ayes x Study from calendar and to renotice the public hearing on said items for the December 4, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -28- COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes 0 MINUTES September 18, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'A D D I T I 0 N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker reviewed the draft agenda of the Joint City Council / Planning Commission / Modifica- tions Committee with the Commission. The Commission concurred with said agenda for the Joint Meeting that will be held in the City Council Chambers on Monday, September 22, 1986, at 2:00 p.m. Planning Director Hewicker informed the Planning Commission that the League of California Cities Conference will be held in Los Angeles, October 19 - 22, 1986. Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Koppelman from the October 9, 1986, and October 23, 1986, Planning Commission meetings. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x A D J O U R N M E N T: 9:50 p.m. • r. x PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -29- INDEX Additional Business Joint CC/ PC /MC Meeting League of I California Cities Excused Absence Adjournment '