HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/1981All Present
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
v`,M5901'-ERS Place: City Council Chambers
Time: 7 :30 p.m.
11"IT CIO Date: September 24., 1981
I City :of Newport Beach
xlxlxlxl (Commissioner Balalis present at 7:35 p.m.)
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT:
JameS'D: Hewicker, Planning Director
Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator -
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator
Donald Webb, City Engineer
Pamela Woods, Secretary
MINUTES
INDEX
r�
U
•
Request to permit the construction of a four unit
Item #1
residential condominium project and related garage
spaces in the R -4 District.' A modification to the
Zoning Code is also requested inasmuch as the proposed
development encroaches: a) 10 feet into the required
USE PERMIT
NO. 2008
20 foot ' front yard setback on West Bay Avenue; b) 3
feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback along
19th Street; and c) 1 foot into the required 3.5 foot
side yard setback along Vilelle Place...
AND
AND
Request to create one parcel of land for residential
condominium development where two lots now exist.
Item #2
-
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 130 -20 -21
(Resubdivision No: 590) and a.portion
of Lot 1 of Block B, Newport Tract
located at 1824 Vilelle Place and 1821
RESUB-
DIVISION
NO. 692
West Bay Avenue, on the northeasterly
side of 19th Street and Vilelle Place on
the Balboa Peninsula.
Both
Continued
To October
-1-
22, 1981
r�
U
MSSUNERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
X
City p of Newport Beach
INDEX
ZONE: R -4
APPLICANTS: Sweeney, Smith, Rosi, Eadington,
Newport Beach
ZONE: Unclassified
AND I AND
Request to install one new, temporary; off -site
directional sign and modify one existing off -site Item #4
temporary' directional sign in the P -C District.
LOCATION:- ,Properties located at the northeasterly EXCEPTION
corner of East Coast Highway and Mac- PERMIT
Arthur Boulevard; and the northerly side N0. 9
of East Coast Highway, approximately 600
feet, easterly of Jamboree Road.
OWNERS: Same as applicants
Staff advised that the applicants have requested that
these items be continued to the Planning Commission
Meeting of October 22, 1981.
Motion
'X
Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commission Meeting of October 22, 1981, which MOTION
Absent
CARRIED,
Request to construct two new, temporary, off -site
Item #3
directional signs and modify one existing off -site
directional sign on properties located in the
•
Unclassified District.
USE PERMIT
LOCATION: - Properties located at the southwesterly -
NO. 2018
corner of Jamboree Road and MacArthur
Boulevard; northwesterly side of
Jamboree Road, approximately 1500 ft.
southwesterly of Ford Road; and the
northwesterly corner of East Coast
Highway and Jamboree Road.
ZONE: Unclassified
AND I AND
Request to install one new, temporary; off -site
directional sign and modify one existing off -site Item #4
temporary' directional sign in the P -C District.
LOCATION:- ,Properties located at the northeasterly EXCEPTION
corner of East Coast Highway and Mac- PERMIT
Arthur Boulevard; and the northerly side N0. 9
of East Coast Highway, approximately 600
feet, easterly of Jamboree Road.
0
Motion
Ayes
Noes
r1
LJ
� D
Cr :53 92' 23 & 9
X
September 24, 1981
Of
Beach
APPLICANT: Continental Signs, Stanton
OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
MINUTES
Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 4 were heard concurrently due to
their relationship.
Planning. Director Hewicker referred to the staff
reports prepared on these items and discussed the
additional background information.
The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine
Company, appeared before the Commission and requested
approval of these items.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen,
Mr. Dmohowski stated that they were not aware that
approval for one of the signs had expired. He added
that no complaints have been received because of the
sign.
Commissioner Thomas stated that signage should not be
encouraged along the City streets and highways. He
stated that he is opposed to such signs.
Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 2018, subject
to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION
CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed. signs are compatible with_
surrounding land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3. The Police Department has indicated that they do
not contemplate any problems.
4. The approval of Use Permit No. 2018 will not,
under the circumstances of this case be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing
and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental
-3-
INDEX
\_J
Motion
Ayes
Noes
•
X
September 24, 1981 MINUTES
of Newport Beach
or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That the proposed signs shall be in substantial
conformance with the approval plans except as
noted'below.
2. That this approval shall be for a period of one
year, and any extension shall be subject to the
approval of the Modifications Committee.
3. That Sign No. 1 at the southwesterly corner of
MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road shall be a
maximum of 146 square feet 1, 20 feet in height
and shall include only directional information to
residential developments in the City which. are
actively involved in home or property sales.
4. That the signs be located so that sight distance
is not impaired, and that the locations be subject -
to future review by the Traffic Engineer.
Motion was made for approval of Exception No. 9,
subject to the following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED: -
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed signs are compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. The ' project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3. The Police Department has indicated that they do
not contemplate any problems.
4. That the approval of Exception No. 9 is necessary
to protect a substantial property right and will
not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of
the Municipal Code (Sign Ordinance) and will not
be materially detrimental to the health, safety,
comfort or general welfare of persons residing in
the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to
-4-
INDEX
AN5510NEK5 September 24, 1981 MINUTES
i I I I City of Newport Beach
INDEX
property or improvements in the neighborhood, or
to the general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That the proposed signs shall be in substantial
conformance with approved plans except as noted
below.
2. That this approval shall be for a period of one
year, and any extension shall be subject to the
approval of the Modifications Committee.
Newport Beach
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Bob Inch, Director of Operations for Lido
Marina Village, appeared before the Commission and
requested approval of Alternative No. 1.
Mr. Malcolm Geffen, owner of Luigi's Pizza, appeared
• before the Commission and stated that the majority of
-5-
3. That the signs be located so that sight distance'
is not impaired, and that the locations.be subject
to future review by the Traffic Engineer.
•
Request to amend a previously approved use permit
Item #5
establishing a restaurant facility with on -sale beer
and wine in Lido Marina Village so as to permit the
expansion of said restaurant facility by permitting
outside seating.
USE PERMIT
NO. 1905
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 59 -17 (Resub-
Amended
division No. 416) located at 3420 Via
Oporto between Central Avenue and Via
Lido, in Lido Marina Village.
APPROVED
ZONE: - C -1 -H
CONDI-
TIONALLY
APPLICANT: George's Camelot, Newport Beach -
OWNER: Lido Marina Village Associates, -
-
Newport Beach
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Bob Inch, Director of Operations for Lido
Marina Village, appeared before the Commission and
requested approval of Alternative No. 1.
Mr. Malcolm Geffen, owner of Luigi's Pizza, appeared
• before the Commission and stated that the majority of
-5-
* _J
3
September 24, 1981
-.
MINUTES
INDEX
the restaurant owners are opposed to exclusive use of
any common area. He stated that the restaurant owners
have reached an agreement with the applicant and have
requested that the agreement be officially recorded.
Mr. Inch stated that an agreement has been reached that
the exclusive use section be handled 'under a separate_
lease with the lessee. If this section were to be sold
to a fast food, take -out operation, there would not be
exclusive use of the tables. Mr. Inch stated that they'
are happy to acknowledge this agreement.
Commissioner Balalis, stated that this should be
included in the use permit approval, not by a private.
agreement. Planning Director Hewicker referred to
Area B in Alternative No. 1 and suggested that the
condition of approval state that the exclusive use of
that area only be permitted for this particular
restaurant facility.
• In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas,
Planning Director Hewicker explained the exclusive use
issue. Planning Director Hewicker stated that under
the terms of this use permit, the applicant would have
exclusive use of Area B, which is along the side of the
restaurant, as opposed to the area directly in front of .
the restaurant.
Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that the public
be made aware that the existing tables and chairs
located in the six foot easement, are for the use of
the public, and not the exclusive use of the
restaurant. Chairman McLaughlin stated that signs are
currently posted on the pedestrian easement which
indicate that the tables and chairs are for the
public's use.
Mr. Edward Warmington, owner of Lots 2 and 3 in the
adjoining building, asked staff if this request will
add to the parking requirement. Planning Director
Hewicker stated that this request will add to the
parking, but calculations indicate that parking spaces..
will still be available during the daytime and evening
hours. Mr. Warmington stated that there is not a
problem with nighttime parking, but stated that daytime
• -6-
COMMISSIONERS
3
MINUTES
September 24, 1981
City of Newport Beach
CALL
INDEX
parking is a problem. He stated that he is against
adding anymore tables or businesses which affect the
parking for the existing tenants and patrons of the
Lido Village area.
Commissioner Beek asked if there is a charge for
parking in the parking structure. Mr. Inch stated that
there is.a 35 cent charge for one -half hour. He added
that over 100 free parking stickers are provided for
the stores in the area.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Winburn, Mr. Bill Laycock, Current Planning
Administrator, stated that the floor area square
footage of this proposal has been reduced from the
previously approved restaurant facility.
Commissioner Allen clarified that in addition to the '
exclusive seating Area B, the customers of George's
Camelot can "use" the public tables and chairs. She
stated that the applicant would not be allowed to
•
"serve" his customers at the public tables, with
tableclothes, silverware and so on.
Mr. Geffen stated that during the summer, in making
the concession of the exclusive seating for this
restaurant, the end result is that the common area is
utilized first, so that the exclusive area seating is
reserved. He stated that the public at large, is at a
disadvantage.
Commissioner .Thomas referred to Page 2 of the staff
report and asked if the easement language is standard.
Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that .
the intent of the language is to allow for lateral
movement on the pedestrian walkway and to require the
grantor, Lido Marina Village, to improve the area so
that it can be used for public purposes.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen,
Mr. Burnham stated that this matter can be enforced by
the City through action on the use permit.
I I I 11*1 { I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
lit Mr. Inch stated' that there is a better water view
adjacent to the bulkhead. He stated that a fine french
• food restaurant dictates tableclothes and normal table
set ups. He stated that Alternative No. 1 satisfies
most everyone.
-7-
LWCOMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
:E
1 Ira' City of Newport Beach
CALL INDEX
•
Motion
Substitute
Motion
Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that the
applicant would be putting tableclothes on the public
tables. Mr. Inch stated that if a customer requested a
certain table, then this situation might arise. Mr.
Inch stated that the applicant would not be permitted .
to deliberately set up the public tables.
Mr. Burnham stated that a customer has the right,
notwithstanding, to be seated at a certain location.
However, he suggested that Condition of Approval No. 1
be revised to include that the applicant shall not
interfere with the right of the public to use the
tables and chairs.
Commissioner Beek asked if the applicant would be in
violation of the use permit if he put a tablecloth on a
public table: Mr. Burnham stated that would not be in
violation, as long as the customer had requested the
table. The applicant would not be allowed to put
tableclothes on the public tables in advance of anyone
making that request.
X I I I I I Motion was made for approval of Alternative No. 2,
subject to the findings and conditions as set .forth in
Exhibit "B ", which will not permit private use of a
public easement.
Substitute motion was made for approval of Alternative
X No. 1, subject to the findings and conditions as set,
forth in Exhibit "A" with a revision to Condition No: l
that the applicant shall not interfere with the right
of the public to use the tables and chairs, and an
added Condition No. 5 that the exclusive use of Area
"B" will go with this particular restaurant use.
Amendment
Acceptance X
A11 Ayes
11
X Commissioner Beek suggested an amendment to the
substitute motion to include the following language:
That if the applicant serves a. customer at a public
table, the tablecloth and silverware must be removed as
soon as the customer is finished with the table.
Chairman McLaughlin accepted this as an amendment to
her substitute motion.
XIXIXIXIXI Amended Substitute Motion for approval of Use Permit
No. 1905 (Amended) by Chairman McLaughlin was now voted
on as follows, which AMENDED SUBSTITUTE MOTION carried:
-8-
COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
cr
rz
City of Newport Beach
R CALL INDEX
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed restaurant expansion is consistent
with the General Plan, and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. The Police Department has indicated that they do
not contemplate any problems.
3. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
4. The approval.of Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) will
not, under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, and general welfare of persons residing'
and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental
or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the attached floor plan
designated "Alternative 1 ". Specifically,
the existing tables and chairs located within the
6 foot public pedestrian easement shall remain
free and available to the public. All tables and
chairs located in the fire lane shall be removed..
A portion of the patio area to the east of the
subject structure may be used for the exclusive
use of George's.Camelot restaurant use. The
applicant shall not interfere with the right of
the public to use the tables and chairs in front
of the restaurant facility adjacent to the bulk -.
head.
2. That the total number. of tables and chairs
permitted, and their specific location throughout
the Lido Village complex, shall be approved by the
City Fire Marshall and Planning Director.
3. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40
sq. ft. of interior and exterior "net public area"
shall be provided in the Lido Marina Village
• parking structure.
-9-
COMMISSIONERS
* _
c a F F>
r Z)
7
15. fo 7C (a
September 24, 1981
Of
Beach
MINUTES
4. That all mechanical equipment and the storage of
cartons, containers, and trash shall be shielded
from view within a building or within an area
enclosed by a wall or fence.
5. That the exclusive use of Area "B" shall be
permitted in conjunction with this particular
restaurant use only.
6. That if a customer requests to be served at a
public table, the tablecloth and silverware must '
be removed as soon as the customer is finished
with the table.
* * x
INDEX
•
Request to establish a restaurant facility with on -sale
beer and wine and outdoor seating in conjunction with
an existing retail sales operation.
LOCATION: Lots 1121, 1122 and a portion of Lot
1123, Tract 907, located at 3448 Via
Item #6
USE PERMIT -
NO'. 2020
Oporto on the northeasterly side of Via
Oporto, between Central Avenue and Via
Lido, in Lido Marina Village.
APPROVED
-
ZONE: C -1 -H
CONDI-
TIONALLY
APPLICANT: .Lido Marina Village, . Newport Beach
_
OWNER: Lido Marina Village Associates,
Newport Beach
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Bob Inch, Director of Operations for Lido
Marina Village, appeared before the Commission and
requested approval of this item.
Mr. Edward Warmington, owner of Lots 2 and 3 in the
adjoining building, appeared before the Commission and
expressed his concerns relating to the number of
daytime parking spaces available in the parking
•
structure. He then referred to the staff report and .
stated that the number of off -site parking agreements
is much higher than 42 spaces.
-10-
c x FD
September 24, 1981 MINUTES
of Newport Beach
0 FMW CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX
Motion I IXI
All Ayes X X X
n
U
Mr. Inch explained the validation guidelines utilized
for the parking structure.
Planning Director Hewicker attempted to explain the
controversy which revolves around the parking spaces in
the parking structure. He explained the pre- existing
and private agreements, between the owners of the
parking structure and the owners of the Via Lido shops.
Mr. Warmington explained that his private parking
agreement does not expire until the year 2005.
Mr. Inch explained the use of the private parking
agreements. He stated that there is ample room in the
structure for customer parking. He added that this
request will not overburden the parking structure.
Mr. Inch stated that they would also be agreeable to a
condition relating to the tablecloth usage, as required
in the previous item, Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended).
In response to a question posed by Chairman McLaughlin,
Mr. Burnham explained the City's position regarding
private parking agreements.
Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2020
subject to the following findings and conditions,
including the provision relating to tablecloths, which
MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the
General Plan and is compatible with surrounding
land uses.
2. Adequate off - street parking spaces are being
provided for the proposed development.
3. The Police Department has indicated that they .do
not contemplate any problems.
4. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 2020 will not,
under the circumstances of this case be
-11-
COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
y City of Newport Beach
CALL 1 I I I I INDEX
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing
and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental
or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved floor plan, except
as noted below.
2. That all mechanical equipment and the storage of
cartons, containers and trash shall be shielded
from view within a building or within an area
enclosed by a wall or a fence, the location of
which is to be approved by the City Fire Marshall
and Planning Director.
3. That the total interior and exterior "net public.
• area" shall be determined by the amount of parking
available and based upon the parking standard of
one space for each 40 square feet of "net public
area ".
4. The total number of tables and, chairs and their
specific locations within the structure and in the
Lido Marina Village complex shall be determined by
the City Fire Marshall and Planning Director.
5. That there shall be no exclusive use of any of the
tables and chairs within the pedestrian easement.
6. That if a customer requests to be served at a
public table, the tablecloth and silverware must
be removed as soon as the customer is finished
with the table.
Item #7
Request the approval of street name changes in the
Harbor Pointe single family residential development. TRACT NO.
10625
LOCATION: Tract 10625, bounded by MacArthur
Boulevard to the north and west, and
Roger's Gardens on the east, and the APPROVED
• extension of San Miguel Drive on the
south.
-12-
Motion
Ayes
Abstain
•
1Mb!)KJNLK!) September 24, 1981 MINUTES
9 City of Newport Beach
INDEX
ZONE: R -A and R -1 -B
APPLICANT: Village Homes, Tustin
OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and
Associates, Newport Beach
The discussion opened in connection with this item and
Mr. Doug Shrout,. Project Manager for Village Homes,
appeared before the Commission and requested approval
of this item.
Commissioner Beek stated that there is a Harbor Point
development in Costa Mesa. Mr. Shrout stated that the
legal name of this project will be Harbor Pointe' (with
an "e").- Newport. Commissioner Beek expressed his
concern for developments which are named so closely.
Mr. Shrout stated that the development in Costa Mesa
does not have a street address by the name Harbor Point
or Harbor Pointe.
Commissioner Balalis stated that he would be abstaining I
from participating or voting on this item due to a
conflict of interest.
IX Motion was made to approve the street name change to
X X X X X "Harbor Pointe" in Tract No. 10625, which MOTION
X CARRIED.
� It
Request to amend an approved use permit that permitted Item #8
on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment . in
an existing restaurant. The proposal consists of the
replacement of an existing pole sign with a European
style identification Kiosk, and also utilized to USE PERMIT
display community display notices. NO. 1853
ende )
LOCATION: Lots 3 thru 8, Block 431, Lancaster's
Addition to Newport Beach Tract, located.
at 3110 Newport Boulevard, on the north-
Easterly corner of Newport Boulevard and APPROVED
31st Street in Cannery Village. O-NDI
TIONALLY
-13-
* -
Cr
HIM � � �I
September 24, 1981
Nn
Beach
MINUTES
■ R M & CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11NDEX
Motion
All Ayes
•
XIXIX
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Tastevin, Inc., Newport Beach
OWNER: The Employees Retirement Fund of the
Deutsch Co., Los Angeles
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Tony Hermann, President of Tastevin, Inc.,
appeared before the Commission and requested approval
of this item.
Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1853
(Amended) subject to the following findings and
conditions, which MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS•
1. That the proposed kiosk is compatible with
surrounding.land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant
environmental impacts.'
3. That the proposed kiosk, in addition to all other
signs on the property, are in conformance with all
applicable requirements of Chapter 20.06 (Sign
Ordinance) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
4. That the proposed kiosk will not reduce the size
or the number of existing on -site parking spaces.
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1853 (Amended) will
not, under the circumstances of this case be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing
and working in the neighborhood or the general_
welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development. shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan and
elevation.
I I I I I I I -14-
* _ pppp
C7C m D
s
3 I(C N
•
September 24, 1981
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
2. That the proposed kiosk shall be limited to 40 -
square feet of commercial sign area to be used for
the identification of the site related restaurant..
All other display surfaces shall be limited to the
posting and display of public and community
related notices.
3. The proposed kiosk shall be maintained in a clean
and neat manner which shall be the responsibility
of the on -site restaurant operator.
4. That all previous conditions of Use - Permit No.
1853 (Amended), approved by the Planning
Commission on April 19, 1979, shall be conditions
of this approval.
5. That all improvements be constructed as required
by Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
6. That an encroachment permit be obtained from the
Public Works Department for the proposed kiosk
sign pole encroachment into the public
right -of -way.
7. That the existing on -site pole sign shall be
removed.
Chairman McLaughlin made a special presentation to past
Planning Commission Chairman Tim Haidinger, in which,
she presented him with a personalized gavel.
0 11111111 -15-
:E -
uF
11
September 24, 1981 MINUTES
of Newport Beach
Request to construct a 20 unit time share condominium
development and related parking area in the C -1 -H
District that exceeds the basic height within the 26/35
Foot Height Limitation District and the acceptance of
an environmental document.
r_ au�
Request to establish a single building site for a 20
unit residential time share condominium project where
two lots and a portion of two other lots now exist.
LOCATION: Lots 5, 6 and a portion of Lots 4 and 7
of Tract No. 1622, located at 3336 Via
Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via
Lido between Via Oporto and Via Malaga
in the Lido Village area.
ZONE.
APPLICANTS:
OWNER:
ENGINEER:
C -1 -H
R.V. Hogan Company and Spangler/
Schachtman and Associates,
Newport Beach
Robert Glasser, Newport Beach
Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa
Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 10 were heard concurrently due
to their relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. Dick Hogan, representing the applicant,
appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hogan referred to
condition of approval No. 2 for the use permit and
requested that 20 time share units be approved rather
than 18 units. He suggested that in answer to the
concern of the staff report, an alternative of two
additional parking spaces be proposed for a total of 25
parking spaces or, that there be a reduction in the
number of two bedroom units.
Mr. Hogan then referred to condition of approval No. 8
for the resubdivision and stated that they have no
objection in granting the easement, but stated that
• they are concerned with the architectural one foot
-16-
INDEX
MMMEr_r.
Item #9
USE PERMIT
N0. 2019
AND
Item #10
RESUB-
DITTYfION
�-
Both
Continued
To November
5, 1981
September 24, 1981
Of
Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
encroachments into the six foot easements, reducing
them in some places to five feet, in order to provide
landscaping. He requested that the condition be
amended to provide for said encroachments_ for
landscaping purposes.
Mr. Hogan then explained to the Commission the
concept of the requested time share proposal. He
presented a slide presentation which depicted various
photographs of the model for the project illustrating
views and elevations.
Mr. Hogan stated that this proposal is consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance and the Local Coastal Plan. He
stated that this project will allow greater public
access to the bay and will cause a reduction in the
amount of traffic in the area. He added that the
existing residential uses at this location are
non - conforming uses and that the existing parking is
inadequate.
• Commissioner Allen asked how a dwelling unit could be'
less than 600 square feet. Planning Director Hewicker
stated that these proposed units are not considered to
be dwelling units as in single family dwellings,
duplexes, triplexes or apartments. He stated that the
time share units are more similar to a motel or hotel
use, which have no specific floor area requirements.
Commissioner Allen asked the Assistant City Attorney
for information on the pending legislation relating to
the time share concept. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant
City Attorney, referred to the statutory reference
11083.4 of the Business and Professional Code which
incorporates the time share concept into the definition
of subdivided land so that there would have to be
compliance with raw land requirements. He stated that
he is not aware of any pending legislation which
specifically references time shares.
Commissioner Winburn asked Mr. Hogan who they
anticipate will *be purchasing these units. Mr. Hogan
stated that they anticipate that the major purchase's
would come from the Southern California area. He
stated that they do not know the number of out -of -state
• 11111111 -17-
MISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
:E-4
c
� tG 7c w
CALL
Of
Beach
INDEX
purchases to be anticipated. He also stated that Time
Share Resorts International would be available to the
owners of the project.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the site photograph in
Figure VII of the Initial Study and asked if its
location was accurate. Mr. Hogan stated that the
building is not exactly to scale. He stated that the
building proposed would be smaller in that the parking
lot width would have to he allowed for. Commissioner
Thomas stated that the building would be higher than it
is depicted in the photograph. .
Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Hogan to explain the excess
height of the brick wall. Mr. Hogan stated that
depending on the roof construction, there is a
requirement of a parapet wall. He stated that the'
staff has conditioned that the parapet wall be reduced
to the correct height. Mr. Hogan added that they have
no objection to reducing the wall height.
• Having previously researched information relating to
standards for time share projects, Planning Director
Hewicker discussed with the Commission time share
projects which are already in operation in Laguna
Beach, Palm Springs and Hawaii. He also explained
applicable taxes and assessments for projects of this
nature, parking requirements, the usage of
International Resorts time sharing and management costs
for time share projects.
Commissioner Thomas stated that it is not clear how
this proposal conforms with the General Plan and the
Local Coastal Plan. Planning Director Hewicker stated
that residential uses and hotels are legitimate uses in
a commercial zone. He stated that the boat slips
bayward of the project meet the incentive use in the
Local Coastal-Plan.
Commissioner' Thomas expressed his concern that a hotel
does not meet the intent of the Recreational /Marine/
Commercial designation of the General Plan. Mr. Fred
Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, referred to Page
30 of the Initial Study and stated that the marina
would constitute the incentive use, the hotel or motel
use is allowed in this zone, subject to securing a use
• - permit.
-18-
f �
September 24, 1961 MINUTES
of Newport Beach
■ R M CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX
Commissioner Thomas stated that the applicant is not
providing the incentive use. Planning Director
Hewicker stated that the Local Coastal Plan does not
state that the incentive use must be under the same,
direct control of the non - incentive use. He stated
that if the control of the marina were to be with the
time share association, it has been determined that
there would be less public benefit. Commissioner
Thomas stated that there are still a lot of gray areas
relating to the regulations for incentive uses.
Ms. Marion Pickens, President of the Lido Isle
Community Association, appeared before the Commission
in opposition to the proposed time sharing condominium
and the time sharing concept. She referred to her
letter dated September 24, 1981, and stated that the
area is already totally saturated with people and
traffic problems. She also stated that the transient
population would have an impact on the environment.
Mr. John Dryden of 3326 via Lido, presented to the
• Commission a petition containing 100 signatures from
homeowners which are opposed to this request. He
stated that they are opposed to a change in the General
Plan which would accommodate such a development. He
stated that he is in agreement with the comments made
by Commissioner Thomas relating to the Local Coastal
Plan. He also stated that the parking for the marina
is inadequate and further described the existing
parking problems in the general area. He stated that
the requirement of only one parking space for the
proposed two bedroom apartments is inadequate and will
place a further burden on the community.
In response to .a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mr. Dryden stated that there are other areas in Newport
Beach which would be more suitable for a motel type
operation. Mr. Dryden stated that most of the people
who would be purchasing these time share units have no
vested interest in the City. He also stated that two
or three couples may buy a week in the time share unit
together and therefore, would be bringing more'dars to
the development'.
Mr. Bill Shaver of the Lido Isle Community Association,
presented to the Commission a petition containing 54
• more signatures from homeowners in the area who are
opposed to this request. He stated that the boat slips 111 11111
-19-
•
r
U
CUMMI551VNLKJ September 24, 1981 MINUTES
x y City of Newport Beach
CALL INDEX
should not be considered as an incentive use because
they already exist and are rented for years in advance.
He expressed his concerns related to traffic and
parking in the area. He stated that the project may be
creating visual access to the bay for itself, but the
existing 'driveways for visual access to the bay will be
lost. He also added that the noise level which will be
generated by the exterior balconies will be severe.
Ms. Gloria Rowe, resident of 1611 Cliff Drive, stated
that the traffic is very bad in the Via Lido area. She
stated that the people who will be using the time share
units will not have a vested interest in the City of
Newport Beach.
Mr. Dick Thorman, resident of Newport Beach and tenant
in the existing building for the proposed site, stated'
that he builds, develops, finances and sells time share
units. He stated that he handled the Laguna Shores
time share development, which he stated has been
accepted quite well by the community of Laguna Beach.
Mr. Thorman stated that last year, the State
Legislature passed Bill AB 1736 which deals directly
with time share. He stated that it is the strongest -
consumer orientated bill relating to time share that
exists in the United States. He stated that'the bill
provides immense protection for the consumer. He added
that since that time, the additional protection of the
three -day right of rescission had been included.
Mr. Thorman explained to the Commission the way in
which a time share :development operates. He stated
that there is a pride of ownership in the time share*
units. He stated that there is an important economical
difference between visitors to an area and transients.'
He suggested that the developer of this project may
want to reduce the two bedroom units to one bedroom
units. He stated that the Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC &R's) could contain a provision that
the owner could not bring more than one car. He added
that this has worked well at the Laguna Shores
development.
Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Thorman how two or three
couples could be prevented from buying time together in
one unit. Mr. Thorman stated that strict occupancy
-20-
1
x
CALL
September 24, 1981
Z
Beach
MINUTES
restrictions per unit would have to be applied. He
added that the stronger the CC &R's are, the stronger
the operation.of the development will be.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner King
and Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Thorman stated the owner
is free to rent the unit and may contact the* agent to
handle the rent. However, he stated that the owner is
responsible for the maintenance and wear and tear of
the unit while the renter is occupying the unit.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis, Mr. Thorman stated that the size of the time
share units varies by location. He stated that the
treatment of the time share units should be in keeping
with the area.
Mr. Jim.Verns appeared before the Commission and stated
that of all the articles written relating to time
sharing, there is nothing negative stated about the
time share concept, only negative stories related to
• their marketing and sales. He stated that this
proposal will only generate 20 families at this
location for any one given time, and will only generate
an additional nine cars in the City of Newport Beach.
He stated that there will not be a problem with
parking, because parking for these units is provided on
site. He stated that Newport Beach is a vacation
orientated location. He stated that time share owners
are in fact, owners of Newport Beach property, not
transients.
INDEX
Mr. Hogan stated that many people came to Newport Beach_
originally as visitors, and then became permanent .
residents of the City.
Commissioner Beek stated that this is a major planning -
decision for the City of Newport Beach. He stated that
he would like to see more of the residents involved,
before a decision is made.
Motion X Motion was made to continue these items to the meeting „
of October 22,1981, so that the community associations
can be contacted, along with the Board of Realtors.
Commissioner Allen stated that the League of Cities
• Convention is that weekend before the Commission
meeting of October 22nd. She stated that perhaps
-21-
,MISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
additional information which relates to time shares,
can be obtained from this convention.
Amendment X Commissioner Beek amended his motion to continue these
items to the meeting of November 5, 1981.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the approval of
the subdivider is required for the continuance.
Mr. Robert Glasser, owner of the proposed project,
stated that he would prefer that these items not be
continued to November 5, 1981. He stated that a
continuance to October 8th would be satisfactory.
Planning Director Hewicker asked the Commission. for
clarification as to what the notice to the homeowner's
associations should state. Commissioner Thomas:
suggested wording to the effect that precedent setting
action is being considered by the Planning Commission
relating to the endorsement of time sharing. He stated
that comments should be received, so that the
• Commission can set policy on this matter.
Commissioner Allen stated that an alternative would be
to deny this request, without prejudice, sending it on
to the City Council.
Commissioner Balalis stated that this is an item which
is precedent setting. He stated that additional time
is needed to digest the facts received at _tonight's
meeting and to further consider the thoughts of the
residents of Lido Isle. He also stated that the
questions relating to the Local Coastal Plan need to be
further explored. He stated that the Commission needs
to determine the density which will be allowed in the
future for time share condominiums. He stated that
these are the reasons that this matter should be
continued.
Mr. Hogan stated that they have no objections for, a
continuance of the project, for the purpose of the
Planning Commission obtaining additional information
which would help them to make a decision. He added
that they do prefer the October date, rather than the
November date.
• I I I I' I -22-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
September 24, 1981
City of Newport Beach
CALL
INDEX
Chairman McLaughlin stated that the motion is to'
continue these items to the meeting of November 5,
1981, to include the notices as suggested by
Commissioner Beek and to address the concerns - expressed
by the Commission members.
All Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commissioner Beek's amended motion to continue this
matter to the meeting of November 5, 1981, was now
-
voted on, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
- -
Mr. Glasser stated that he is not opposed to the
Commission continuing this item for reasons of
gathering and reviewing further information on the time
share concept. However, he stated that he is opposed
to the special notification which will red flag this
project. He stated that this project has already gone
through the public notification procedure.
Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the
applicant's representative, has given his consent for
this item to be continued. He suggested that the staff
• review with Mr. Hogan, the content of any communication
that may go out to the homeowner's associations. He
stated that the notice should solicit the concerns and
inputs, neither negative or positive, from other
persons which may be affected by similar developments.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the role of the
Planning Commission is to protect the public at large,
and the public's interest in the development of the.
City of Newport Beach.
x
The ,Planning Commission recessed at 10:30 P.M. and
reconvened at '10:40 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS September z4, 1981 MINUTES
r r
1g City of Newport Beach
CALL INDEX
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed
65,000 sq. ft. medical office building.
AND
Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. ± medical office
building 'that exceeds the basic height limit in the
32/50 Height Limitation' District, to permit roof
parking structure, and to waive a portion of the
required off - street parking spaces. Said application -
also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as
to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of
the project's required off - street parking 'spaces, and _
the acceptance of an environmental document.
Item #11
TRAFFIC
STUDY
AND
Item #12.
USE PERMIT
NO. 2021
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 149, Block 2 of
- '-
Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351
Hospital Road on the northeasterly
corner of Hospital Road and Placentia
Both
Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital.
- Continued -
to October
ZONE: A -P
22, 1981
APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd., Robert L. Wish,
- -
General Partner, Santa Ana -
-
OWNERS: Same as applicants -
Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12 were heard concurrently due
to their relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. Carl Kmyla, partner in this project,
appeared before the Commission and stated that they
concur with the staff recommendation for approval. He
stated that there is a demonstrated need in Newport
Beach for additional medical facilities, as evidenced
in the market report. He stated that it is important'
for a medical facility to be located as close to Hoag
Hospital as possible.
Mr. Kmyla addressed concerns expressed by the tenants,
relating to parking, traffic and noise. He stated that
these concerns can be mitigated and are related to
short term construction problems. He stated that the
short term parking problem will be mitigated by the use
of a valet service. He stated that the project will be
phased. He stated that the parking tower will be
constructed first, so that it will be available prior
to the construction of the medical facility.
-24-
COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
D 51 CIO City of N ort Beach
LL INDEX
Commissioner Beek asked if the report he is referring- _
to, takes into account the new medical buildings which
have already been approved for Placentia Avenue. Mr.
Kmyla stated that the marketing studies took these
medical buildings into account.
Mr. Robert Kite, architect of the project, presented to
the Commission renderings of the proposed project which
depicted the plot plan, elevations, parking structure,
typical floor plans, circulation plan and
Phase I and Phase II. He also explained the proposed
parking structure operation and traffic circulation.
Mr. Kite also addressed the concerns as expressed by
the tenants. He stated that the construction noise '
should not be a problem because the patients would only
be aware of it while they were at the front entrance of
the building. He stated that this project will have
very little effect on the traffic in the area. He
explained that the usage of the valet parking service
will be utilized during the construction of the .
• parking structure. He stated that the patients would
not have to pay for parking, only those who are parked
in the structure illegally.
Mr. Kite stated that the property is not being over-
built, because under the existing Zoning Ordinance,
twice the square footage could be ,built. He discussed
the safety of a multi -story parking structure and the
usage of an attendant. He stated that they are also
providing more than the required handicapped parking
spaces. He also stated that they do not foresee any
problems with the construction equipment interfering
with any of the diagnostic equipment.
Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Kite if they .would be
agreeable to a condition in which they would not be
permitted to add any additional square footage to this.
development in the future. Mr..Kite stated that they
would agree to a condition of this nature.
Commissioner Allen asked who will be paying for the
valet parking service. Mr. Kite stated that the owners
will be paying for the parking, as a part of -their
construction costs. He also stated that once the
parking structure is built, the ticket validation will
• be free to the patients.
-25-
MUMUNtKJ September 24, 1981 MINUTES
y City of Newport Beach
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen,'
Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, discussed
interior noise levels. He explained the difference
between a measured 24 hour period and a single event
noise. Mr. Kite stated that they will be taking
whatever actions are necessary to eliminate excessive
construction noise. .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mr. Kite explained the operation of the shuttle bus
system and the off -site parking location.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that at the time the
existing building was constructed, the building height
was fully conforming.
Dr. Barbara Jessen, representing the Park Lido Tenant
Association, appeared in opposition to this proposal.
Dr. Jessen stated that the price of their rents have
risen dramatically since July. She stated there is
already 85,000 square feet of approved medical office
• space to be located within one -half mile of Hoag
Hospital. She expressed their concerns relating to the
affect of the valet parking service on the patients,
construction noise, the proposed parking structure and
the existing traffic problems in the area.
•
Mr. Richard Karbo, resident of 4237 Hilaria Way,
expressed his concerns relating to the traffic flow out
of the parking structure onto the residential streets. .
Ms. Rose Levinson, resident of 415 Flagship Road,
stated that this proposal will be a detriment to the
quality of the life for the residents of the area. She
also expressed her concerns relating to the
construction noise levels.
Mr. Edward Amyes, managing partner in the medical
office building located at 320 Superior Avenue,
stated that they provide free parking for their
patients and employees. He stated that their parking
lot is normally full during the business hours. He
expressed his concern relating to the proposed gated
parking structure and requested that .there be a
condition imposed that there will be permanent free
parking on the site.
-26-
* 1
� 1,71w>
CALL
September 24, 1981
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
Dr. Jack Warner, tentant of the Park Lido Building,
expressed his concern relating to the noise that the
parking structure will generate. He also questioned
the capability of the parking structure.
Mrs. Nancy Skinner, tenant of the Park Lido Building,
expressed her concern with the security of the parking
structure. She stated that a parking attendant will
not be able to provide adequate security; especially
during the evening hours. She requested that a.
condition be imposed to insure proper security. She'
stated that demands for parking vary during the year
and requested that an adequate number of parking spaces
be required.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mrs. Skinner stated that closed circuit cameras in the
parking structure would not solve the security problem.
She also.stated that limiting the number of floors in
the parking structure would not make a difference.
• Mr. Terry Grant, Pharmacist in the Park Lido Building,
stated that the construction of this project will cause
a severe hardship on the patients. He stated that many
of his customers will not want to use the valet parking
only to refill a prescription. He stated that the
tenants will pay for the parking through their .
increased rents. He stated that his business can not
survive during the construction of this project.
Dr. Richard, Jonas, tenant of the* Park Lido Building,
stated that the valet parking system will. cause an
extreme hardship. for his pregnant patients. He also
stated that the construction noise, will make it
difficult to listen to the fetal heartbeats.
Dr. Larry Vaughn, tenant of the Park Lido Building,
stated that a centralized medical community may not be
in the best interest of the patients. He stated that
many patients are elderly and may want to utilize
neighborhood medical facilities.
i
Mr. Bill Wade, owner of The Medical Mart in the Park
Lido Building, stated that the additional assessments
and rent increases are making it difficult for him to
service his customers at an affordable rate. In
• response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn,
Mr. Wade stated that the other closest medical supply
company is located at Newport Center.
-27-
COMMISSIONERS
Cr
September z4, 1981 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
R CALL
INDEX
Dr. John Miller, tenant of the Park Lido Building,
expressed his concern with the existing traffic flow
and the people who come to this area for emergency
medical care. He recommended that another traffic lane
be added to Hospital Road, before any more buildings are
approved for this area.
Mr. Ralph Gray, resident of 407 Evening Star Lane,
stated that a parking problem in the area currently
exists. He stated that people will be parking on the
streets, if they do not want to park in the parking
structure. He stated that in considering the number of
doctors and patients that this project will generate,
the number of proposed parking spaces may not be
adequate. He also expressed concerns relating to the
noise of a parking structure and the additional traffic
which will be introduced to the area.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner King,
Mr. Gray stated that business owners in the area
sharing the costs for a parking structure would not
•
solve the problem, because there is no place to build
another structure.
Ms. Margo Skilling, resident of West Newport,
questioned the .9 percent buildable area of this
project. She referred to the parking structure and
stated that the parking spaces should be located within
a reasonable distance from the' medical offices. She
expressed her concerns with additional drainage which
will flow into the open trench on Coast Highway and the
additional traffic which this project will generate.
Ms. Skilling suggested that any development in this
area should be required to participate in the
acquisition of the Cal Trans West property. She also
suggested that the developer be required to pay a fine
if the construction is not completed within a specified_
time frame.
In response to.a question posed by Commissioner Thomas,
Planning Director stated that the floor area ratio does
not include the area devoted to parking.
Dr. Jack Skinner, tenant of the Park Lido Building,.
asked for clarification on the costs of operating the
•
parking structure. Mr. Kite explained that the cost of
-28-
WAANT)NUNMI September 24, 19e1 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
Rit CALL I INDEX
the parking structure is included in the rent rates or
sales price for the building, but the patients will not
be charged directly for its use. Dr. Skinner expressed
his concerns relating to the proposed gated parking
structure and its operation costs.
Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission can not
resolve tenant /landlord relationships. However, he
stated that the Commission can address how this project
relates to the neighborhood, construction noise levels,
traffic generation.and so on.
Mrs. Louise Greeley, representing the Newport Crest
Homeowner's Association, stated that they are concerned
with the overall plans for West Newport, in this area
particularly. She recommended that the .5 buildable
formula be applied in this area, to ease the traffic
problem. Planning Director Hewicker stated that
applying the .5 buildable formula in this case, would
constitute a denial of the project.
•
Commissioner Beek stated that this request is asking
for an exception to the parking requirement. He asked
if it would be appropriate to include a condition which
would require that free parking and validation be
provided to the patients, employees and tenants. Mr.
Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a
condition of this nature would not be appropriate in
that there is not a reasonable relationship between the
suggested condition and the basis of the use permit
request.
Commissioner Thomas stated that it is evident that this
proposal needs additional work. He suggested that a .
study committee be formed consisting of the developer,
the tenant group, residents of the area and the staff.
Dr. Krasch, tenant of the Park Lido Building, expressed
his concerns relating to the noise that the parking
-
structure will create.
Dr. Edward Bechtel, tenant of the Park Lido Building
questioned that there is a demonstrated need for
additional medical office space in the area. He stated
that this is more likely a demonstrated convenience.
He stated that a little open space should be left for
•
the residents of the area.
_29_
I�
U
Irk
i�
LNT)NUNtK5 September 24, 1981 MINUTES
R, 9 City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Commissioner Beek asked if it would be binding if the
applicant were' to make a commitment that the parking
will be free. Mr. Burnham stated if the applicant
consents to such condition of the use permit, it can
bind the applicant.
In response to a question posed by Chairman McLaughlin,
Mr. Burnham stated the conditions of the use permit -
would go with the land, but such a condition may be
subject to attack in the event of new owners of the
property.
Mr. Larry Smith, owner of the optical store in the Park
Lido Building, stated that he will probably be forced
out of the building and out of business during the
construction of this project.
Dr. Dennis Novak, tenant of the Park Lido Building,.'
stated that this project constitutes an overdevelopment
of land. He stated that the applicant is proposing to
develop this piece of property to its fullest to
maximize their profit and compared it to the housing
market in Newport Beach.
Ms. Robbi Olsen, employee of the Park Lido Building,
expressed her concern with the hardship that the
patients will incur during the construction of this
project.
Dr. Chris Floyd, tenant of the Park Lido .Building,'
stated that this project will have an effect on the
traffic in the area. He stated that it will be
difficult for the disabled or wheelchair patients to
utilize the valet parking service. He stated that the
entire medical community concept in this area must be '
considered.
In response to Commissioner Beek's question, Mr..
Burnham stated that a no fee parking condition can be
imposed during the construction phase, so that parking
can be encouraged at that location.
Dr. Norman Speck,' tenant of the Park Lido Building', -
stated that the tenants have no confidence in the new
owner and have doubts as to the validity of what is
being proposed.
-30-
September 24, 1981 MINUTES
of Newport Beach
(JCL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
Son
L_J
Mr. Kite stated that there has been a tremendous amount
of misunderstanding between the tenants and the
applicant and concurred that new lines of communication
must be established. He stated that the problems which
have been discussed at tonight's meeting, such as the
parking structure, security, traffic impact, and
roadway improvements can be mitigated and resolved. He
stated that this project will be an asset to the
community and to the doctors.
Commissioner Thomas stated that he would vote for a
continuance on this matter so that a study committee
can be formed to develop a proposal which will better
serve the needs of the residents in the area.
Commissioner King stated that the Commission can not
resolve the tenant /landlord dispute. He stated that
perhaps the applicant can work with the staff and any
interested parties to mitigate and resolve these
concerns.
Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning
Commission meeting of October 22, 1981.
Commissioner Allen requested that the following items
be addressed in the next staff report: description of
what could be built in the parking lot without a use
permit to exceed the basic height limit and what could
be built without any discretionary permits; the parking
spill -over problem; concerns of the community services,
located in the building; security issue, parking; and,
the noise of the parking structure once it becomes
operational.
Commissioner Beek stated that the .5 times buildable
guidance for this area should be followed. He stated
that the site, as it currently exists, is being
utilized appropriately. Therefore, he stated that he
would not be voting for a continuance.
Chairman McLaughlin stated that the following items
should be addressed: the alternate parking sites
during construction; structure of the second Hoag tower
and the traffic and parking problems that it will`
create; and, for staff to make a reasonable effort to
notify the renters of the residential areas.
Commissioner Thomas requested that the completion .
schedule condition be considered, and the pedestrian
-31-
MMI55K)NEKS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
m
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
-32-
overpass and extended security issue be addressed in
the next staff report.
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
X
Motion to continue these items to the meeting of
Noes
X
October 22, 1981, was now voted on, which MOTION
CARRIED.
Request to permit the construction of a third level
Item #13
deck on an existing single family structure, in a
manner whereby the required guard rails (wood and
glass) exceed the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot
Height Limitation District.
USE. PERMIT
NU. 2024
LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 329, Corona del Mar Tract,
located at 2320 Pacific Drive on the
northeasterly side of Pacific Drive
between Acacia Avenue and Begonia
APPROVED
•
Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
CONDI-
CIO LL
ZONE: R -2
APPLICANT: John Loomis, Thirtieth Street Architects
Newport Beach
OWNER: John Davison, Corona del Mar
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. John Loomis, representing the owner, appeared
before the Commission and requested approval of this
item. Mr. Loomis submitted to the Commission a letter .
dated September 22, 1981, which contained twelve
signatures from residents in the area in support of
this request.
Commissioner Beek questioned whether the Commission
should hear this item at 12:30 a.m., because of the
lateness of the hour.
Motion
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
Motion was made to hear this item,. which MOTION
Abstain
X
CARRIED.
Commissioner Thomas stated that he would be abstaining
•
on a final vote on this matter, due to a possible
conflict of interest.
-32-
CALL
Motion
Ayes
Abstain
•
r1
LJ
kMISSIONEKS September 24, 1981
MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
X N I X Al XJXJXJXJ Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 2024 subject
to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION
CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General .Plan, the Draft Local
Coastal Plan and is compatible with surrounding
land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3. That the proposed development will result in
more public visual open space, since the
structure will maintain a rear setback and
interior building separation in excess of
Ordinance requirements. Furthermore, other
alternative construction within permitted
building heights would actually be more
disruptive of the view potential from adjoining
properties.
4. The proposed deck and stairway will result in
a more appealing visual character of the area
than is required by the basic height limit.
5. The increased building height of the
proposed development will not result in
undesirable or abrupt scale relationships .
between the structure and the existing one,
and two story development on adjoining
properties.
6. The proposed deck will not create a greater
amount of floor area in the structure than could
have been achieved without the use permit,
inasmuch as open decks are not included in the
allowable floor area calculation.
7.. The approval of Use Permit No. 2024 will not,
under the circumstances of this case be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing
and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
-33-
COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES
�-4
Cr
City of Newport Beach
R CALL INDEX
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan,
floor plans, and elevations.
2. That the two existing parking spaces shall be
maintained for vehicular storage at all
times.
3. That the proposed deck .shall be constructed
in conformance with all applicable provisions of
the Uniform Building Code (1976 Edition). This
condition may necessitate a second stairway from
the third level deck down to the ground level.
There being no further business, the - Planning
•Commission adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
Joan Winburn, Secretary - -
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
IIIIIIII