Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/1988REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONERS PLACE: City Council Chambers MINUTES TIME: 7:30 p.m. y' OFF DATE: October 6, 1988 AG 9� 99 y 9 qy 99 �yQ�o�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present Absent * * Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner Debay were absent. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of Adjourned Special Meeting. September 1. 1988: Minutes of - Adj.PC Mtg Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the 2:00 p.m. 9 -1 -88 Aye * * Adjourned Special Planning Commission Meeting of n * September 1, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of Adjourned Special Meeting September 1 7988: Minutes of Motion Ayes Abstain Absent * * * - Motion was made and voted on to approve the 7:30 p.m. Adjourned Special Planning Commission Meeting of September 1, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. Adj.PC Mtg 9 -1 -88 Motion Minutes of Adjourned Special Meeting September 8 1988: Minutes of Adj.PC Mtg Ayes * * Motion was made and voted on to approve the Adjourned 9 -8 -88 Abstain * Special Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, Absent * * 1988. MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of Regular Meeting, September 22, 1988: Minutes of 9 -22 -88 Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, referred to page 25, second paragraph of the subject Minutes and she requested further clarification of the fourth sentence regarding Granny Units. M Ayes Absent * * * * * Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS 4 y� _ 9 9 ¢ October 6, 1988 Gy 9 v'Gy9�go9y0 = y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR CONFIRMING THE POSTING Posting of OF THE AGENDA: the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 30, 1988, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Continuance applicant, Josephine Ioffrida, has requested that Item No. 1, Resubdivision No. 884, located at 408 and 410 East Balboa Boulevard, be continued to the October 20, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. He further stated • that Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 3322 regarding the establishment of a second dwelling unit, located at 408 San Bernardino Avenue, has been withdrawn by the applicant. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 1, Ayes * * * Resubdivision No. 804, to the October 20, 1988, Planning Absent * * Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 884 (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to resubdivide two existing lots into two R884 parcels of land for two unit residential condominium purposes, on property which is to be rezoned from the C- Continued 1 District to the R -2 District. Said resubdivision also to- 10 -20 -88 includes a request to adjust the location of the interior common property line so as to maintain a minimum area greater than 2,375 sq.ft. for both parcels. LOCATION: Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, Balboa Tract, located at 408 and 410 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northerly side of East • Balboa Boulevard between Cypress Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -2- COMMISSIONERS .0 •0 aj. O.. O� . �dG°'y `�yn`nyy v v t October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Josephine Ioffrida, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Balboa Pacific, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the October 20, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Resubdivision Ayes * * * No. 884 to the October 20, 1988, Planning Commission Absent * * meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3260 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3260A permitted the establishment of an automobile leasing • facility on property located in the M -1 -A District. The Approved proposed amendment involves a request to revise the on- site parking and circulation plan. The proposal also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the on -site parking to encroach 8 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Campus Drive, and to allow a portion of the parking spaces to be compact spaces. LOCATION: Lot 23, Tract No. 3201, located at 4200 Campus Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Campus Drive and Dove Street, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Ralph Gray, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, requested that Condition No. 12 be amended to state "That one handicapped parking space shall be designed within the on -site parking area, and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. Said parking space shall be • identified by one handicapped sign on the post." The public hearing was opened in connection with this -3- COMMISSIONERS yp1Gt�yo99�9P�y9' October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX item, and Mr. Hal Woods, 3505 Cadillac Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Woods concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. Ayes * 3260 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Absent * * * Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 12 as * * previously stated. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use of the property is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the design of 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 development. 4. That the proposed modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an expansion of the parking area to encroach 8 feet 6.inches into the required 15 foot setback adjacent to Campus Drive and the installation of compact parking spaces will not under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the revised parking and circulation plan will greatly improve the on -site vehicular circulation without reducing the number of previously approved • on-site parking spaces. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3260 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case be -4- COMMISSIONERS Gy 9 mo 9�vy y , October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of the 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 site plan, except as noted below. 2. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No 3260 shall be maintained. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the intersection of public street and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the unused drive aprons on Campus Drive and Dove Street frontages shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That a deceleration lane shall be constructed along the easterly side of Campus Drive unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Said improvement shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. • 8. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. -5- COMMISSIONERS y�GO'�% •per �� 9 9 �9t 9 yo oy ¢ �'syo y CITY OF NEWPORT October 6, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 9. That a detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments. Said plan shall include plants that will partially screen the parking spaces adjacent to Dove Street and Campus Drive but will not interfere with sight distance from adjacent driveways. 10. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be subject to. the approval of the Planning, Public Works and Parks Beaches and Recreation Departments Prior to exercising this use permit. A licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 11. That all landscape areas shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a • healthy condition. 12. That one handicapped parking space shall be designed within the on -site parking area, and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. Said parking space shall be identified by one handicapped sign on the post. 13. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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, general welfare of the community. 14. 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. . • -6- COMMISSIONERS \\CITY October 6, 1988 OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX ' Use Permit No. 3327 (Public Hearing) Item No:3 UP3327 Request to establish a restaurant within an existing office building on property located in Office Site "B" in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; and a request to waive a portion of the required off - street Approved parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 114 -22 -24 (Resubdivision No. 570), located at 4000 MacArthur, on the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard, between Jamboree Road and Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Gensler & Associates, Irvine OWNER: Koll Center Newport #10, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this • item, and Ms. Nancy Pouk appeared before the Planning Commission to represent the applicant. Ms. Pouk referred to Condition No. 8 requiring a trash compactor, and she requested that the condition be waived inasmuch as the trash would be appropriately bagged and sealed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Ms. Pouk replied that the trash is picked up on a daily basis, and that the restaurant is proposed to be open only on weekdays. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Pouk replied that the restaurant's operating hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. In response to a question _posed by Acting Chairman Winburn, Ms. Pouk replied that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", with the exception of Condition No. 8. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that trash that is compacted requires less storage space than trash that is bagged and stored. -7- COMMISSIONERS y�G �ys'�y9 v 9�FC October 6, 1988 4+9oGy ��oyo y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3327 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Di Sano commented that if a restaurant is located on the site that it would be possible for the employees to remain on the premises which would indicate less street traffic. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he would support the motion; however, he said that the Planning Commission has previously required either a trash compactor or daily trash pickup. Ayes k * Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3327 Absent * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is • compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer in accordance with Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 4. That adequate parking exists to serve the proposed development. 5. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination and a portion of the required parking will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3327 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: • 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved floor plan. -8- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT October 6, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That 6 parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed cafeteria. 3. That the cafeteria shall not advertise to off -site users. 4. That all signs shall conform to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. 7. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. • 8. That a trash compactor be provided in the restaurant facility. 9. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the cafeteria where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 10. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 11. That no sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning_Commission. 12. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 13. That a loading area for restaurant supply trucks shall be provided at a location acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. 14. That restaurant development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and a portion of the required parking shall be waived. -9- COMMISSIONERS y�G'�F ya �gf v v 1 October 6, 1988 yy? goy ���o�yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That the Planning Commission may add to 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 amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 16. 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. Variance No. 1124 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to allow alterations to an existing attached V1124 garage which currently exceeds the top of curb height on Ocean Boulevard and the maximum permitted height above Continued . natural grade. The proposed alterations involve a to redesign of the garage roof which proposes to continue 10 -20 -88 the nonconforming height of the garage. LOCATION: Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Tract No. 1257, located at 3317 Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard, between Marguerite Avenue and Marigold Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Lisa Benedict, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Pers6n and William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, discussed the revised plans of the roof design as submitted by the architect, Mr.. Jeannette. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeannette stated • that the revised plans were submitted to the Planning Department on September 20, 1988, and he distributed photographs depicting the proposed roof design and the design of an existing roof on adjoining property that -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT October 6, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX also exceeds the top of curb height on Ocean Boulevard, Mr. Jeannette described the proposed design of the garage roof as it relates to the existing contour of the land, and that it would be approximately 5 feet 5 inches above the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. He stated that the top of the roof will remain the same height as the existing roof, but that the eaves will be lowered to steepen the pitch of the roof. He commented that the slate roof will blend architecturally with the design of the house. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Winburn, Mr. Jeannette described the extensive remodel of the structure that will consist of four bedrooms and a family room. He said that the elevator will be removed and a spiral stairway added. Mr. Jeannette stated that the structure is proposed to extend oceanward no further than the existing structure at the furthermost points. Mr. Jeannette and Mr. Hewicker discussed the proposed • remodel of the structure, including the window and door openings, and stud walls that would remain. Mr. Jeannette explained that the remodel includes bringing the structure up to Uniform Building Code requirements. Mr. Jeannette referred to a modification that was approved by the Modifications Committee on August 16, 1988. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the patio area, Mr. Jeannette stated that a solid wall is being constructed to allow an existing patio area to become interior living space. In response to questions posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Jeannette replied that the ceiling of the lower floor and the floor of the upper floor will not be removed. Mr. Jeannette stated that the entire roof of the structure will need to be rebuilt in order to hold the slate. He said that the entire roof would be removed with the exception of small sections that would remain. Mr. Jeannette commented that the working drawings have not been prepared. Mr. Jeannette and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the renovation plans that were under consideration when the applicant applied for a modification, and Mr. Jeannette said that the roof design had not been drawn prior to the modification hearing. -11- COMMISSIONERS October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the new fireplace and chimney, Mr. Jeannette replied that the fireplace and chimney will meet the Uniform Building Code requirements and that some of the proposed architectural features on top of the existing and proposed chimneys may have to be removed. Mr. Jeannette and Mr. Hewicker discussed the anticipated cost of a new structure, assuming that the foundation is in place, at $150.00 per square foot, and that the remodel of the 3,000 square foot structure would be estimated at between $75.00 to $100.00 per square foot. Mr. Jeannette and Commissioner Merrill discussed the design and construction of the garage roof. Mr. Jeannette explained that the roof needs to be removed inasmuch as the shakes of the roof are old and the intent is for the roof design to blend in architecturally with the structure. Mr. Jeannette stated that the proposed garage roof will not be any higher than the existing ridge height of the roof and • the roof would be lowered, if possible. Mr. Jeannette and Commissioner Merrill discussed the extension of the balcony. Mr. Jeannette stated that to relocate and lower the garage from the street level, the master bedroom would need to be removed, or if the garage would be relocated off of Breakers Drive, then the garage would be 60 feet to 70 feet below the structure. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Jeannette replied that the dwelling is thirty years old, and he did not know if the roof was also that old. Ms. Lisa Benedict, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Benedict stated that they are not adding height to the existing house. She said that lowering the eaves of the garage roof will enhance the view from the street and for the public. Ms. Benedict stated that the architectural design of the proposed remodeling is English Tudor. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker regarding why two applications had been submitted, Mr. • Jeannette explained that the original modification application was to add to the square footage of the structure; however, he said that after the approval of the modification, the applicant requested that the roof -12- COMMISSIONERS �Op�n��OP9�9�9y9I. October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX be redesigned. Mr. Hewicker commented that at a cost of $100.00 per square foot times the square footage of the structure at 3,000 square feet, the remodel would cost about $300,000.00. Mr. Jeannette concurred, and he stated that the applicants had been informed that the remodel would be expensive. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Winburn, Mr. Jeannette concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Richard Kissinger, 3300 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kissinger stated that his concern is that the view would be impaired by the proposed chimney. Discussion ensued regarding the plans that were submitted relating to the two chimneys heights and if they would have an impact on the view. Mr. Kissinger concluded that there has been too much confusion regarding the variance and that he is • requesting more concrete information. Mr. Marvin Neben, 3312 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that his concern is that the existing garage is the only structure that is located along this side of Ocean Boulevard that exceeds the top of curb, and he requested that inasmuch as the applicants are doing extensive remodeling that they bring the nonconforming building into conformity. He addressed his concern regarding the new chimney. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Pers6n and Mr. Hewicker regarding whether the applicant could build a chimney without a discretionary permit if it met the Uniform Building Code requirements concerning the top of the roof and exceeded the top of curb. Mr. Hewicker stated that nonconforming structures that exceeded the top of curb that were not in existence or that were under construction on the date of the Height Limit Ordinance, may be continued or altered provided that the changes do not result in a greater amount of nonconformity than was existing. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff required a variance application because the applicants were physically removing the old roof and building a new roof. In reference to the construction of a fireplace, Mr. Hewicker stated that chimneys and vents • shall be permitted in excess of height limits to the minimum extent required by the Uniform Building Code, which is a chimney height of two feet at a distance of -13- COMMISSIONERS October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX ten feet from the roof. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Laycock replied that the Municipal Code provides that a chimney may encroach one foot into a three foot side yard setback or two feet into a four foot side yard setback. Mr. Worth Probst, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Probst stated that the applicants intend to improve the property, that they intend to provide a smaller roof with a steeper pitch so as to enhance the view, and that the improvements will be aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Merrill's concern regarding a side yard encroachment, Mr. Hewicker replied that the plans do not indicate an encroachment for the chimney on the west side of the wall, and that the fireplace is located entirely within the exterior of the wall. Commissioner Merrill stated that the chimney extends . between the first and second floor into the side yard setback. Mr. Hewicker commented there may be a difference between the way that the fireplace and chimney are shown on the floor plan and the way that it is shown on the elevation plan. In reference to Mr. Probst's testimony, Mr. Hewicker explained that there is a concern regarding the extent of the remodel of the existing structure that would require the construction of a new garage. Mr. Jeannette reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that the fireplace and chimney would extend no more than 12 inches into the side yard and that it would not extend any higher than is required by the Uniform Building Code in height or in size. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Jeannette stated that he would agree to a condition that the fireplace not extend any higher than what is permitted by the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Hewicker stated that a letter had been received from Mr. William Cohen, 3308 Ocean Boulevard, prior to the public hearing indicating his objection to the variance application. • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -14- COMMISSIONERS ymGOL �yo�yy 9 a yy goy �`y a�yo9 October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Di Sano addressed the inconsistency of the drawings and the concerns expressed by the neighbors; however, he pointed out that the variance would permit an improvement to the property and it would reduce some Motion of the view obstruction. Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1124 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including a condition that would require the fireplace and chimney not to extend any further than 12 inches into the side yard setback. Commissioner Merrill addressed the late receipt of the revised roof elevation plan by the Planning Commission, and he stated that inasmuch as the elevations given to the Planning Commission were not complete and how the changes would manifest, he made a substitute motion to continue Variance No. 1124 to the October 24, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner PersGn stated that all interested parties would benefit if all of the improvements would be made. He commented that he would support the motion to continue the application, and he suggested that the applicant provide adequate findings to support the variance as required by law. He pointed out that the applicant could leave the roof as it presently exists, and still build a chimney which would be a further detriment to the neighbors. In reference to the question of what is and what is not a remodel, he stated that the issue needs to be addressed inasmuch as there are too many instances where the Planning Commission finds themselves in situations where they are presented with plans that border on being a complete new building and labeled as a remodel. He explained that if it is a complete new building then it would have to conform to the current Uniform Building Code. Commissioner Edwards stated that in addition to previous comments made by the Planning Commission, there are concerns regarding the chimney that need to be addressed. Substitute Substitute motion was voted on to continue Variance No. Motion * 1124 to the October 20, 1988, Planning Commission Ayes * * * meeting. MOTION.CARRIED. Noes -15- COMMISSIONERS ymG yoy9by'9y'9� October 6, 1988 9yo�y��a�,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1145 (Public Hearinz Item No.5 V1145 Request to permit construction of a duplex on property located in the R -2 District which exceeds the allowable gross structural area of two times the buildable area of Approved the site. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required open space and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 16 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback adjacent to Lake Avenue and a portion of the second floor to encroach 5± feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 1 and 2, Block 235, Lake Tract, located at 3510 Lake Avenue, on the northeasterly side of Lake Avenue, between 35th Street and 36th Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Academy Builders, Placentia OWNER: Lucille Stafford, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Fred West appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. West stated that the City Attorney's Office informed them that the variance would stand only on the conditions of the variance and they would not be affected by the proposed General Plan Amendment. Mr. West stated that the variance request is less intense than what is permitted on properties in the area that have different configurations and that are not affected as adversely as the subject property as to setback requirements. Mr. West stated that most lots are 2,375 square feet and built out to 3,036 square feet. He said that the subject lot is 2,250 square feet which if to apply the same standards would allow for a buildout of 2,884 square feet; however, he said that they are proposing to buildout to 2,495 square feet. In response to a question posed by James Hewicker, Planning Director, Mr. West replied that the working drawings have been completed and they will be submitted as soon as possible inasmuch as they are aware of the time frame concerning the proposed General Plan Amendment. -16- COMMISSIONERS ymG� ��?f 'f' 9 91 goy f (���o October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Lucille Stafford, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Stafford stated that the subject property consists of an old structure that requires maintenance, there are no garages currently on the property, and that she has a desire to use the duplex to supplement her retirement income. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Ms. Stafford replied that she will continue to maintain a residence on the property. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Winburn, Ms. Stafford replied that the property currently consists of a three bedroom lower unit and a one bedroom upper unit and that the proposed duplex will consist of a two bedroom lower unit and a one bedroom upper unit. She said that four parking spaces will be provided on site. Mr. Ralph Brandt, 300 - 36th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the variance inasmuch as a new structure would be an asset to the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Brandt replied that his single family residence is located on the adjacent property, and that the lot split was prior to the time that he purchased the property. Mr. Jerry Bernheimer, 208 - 36th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bernheimer stated that he supports a new structure on the property; however, he expressed his concerns regarding the intensity of people, automobiles, and structures in the area. Mr. West reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 4 requiring individual water service and sewer lateral connection for each unit. Acting Chairman Winburn advised that the condition is a standard condition that is included in all similar applications. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the grace period concerning the adoption of the General Plan Amendment, Carol Korade, Assistant City -17- COMMISSIONERS yO\100�rlr v y 0 t October 6, 1988 0 O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Attorney, explained that under the existing General Plan Amendment that was sent to the City Council by the Planning Commission, the duplex would be prohibited because of the small lot size. She explained that the Planning Commission did not approve the grace period, and that this project would not have vested rights to build. She stated that if the City Council allows some type of grace period for projects that are under consideration, it would be possible that this project would be covered. Mr. Hewicker explained that the language that is being proposed by staff is to allow a grace period for those projects which have been submitted for plan check. Acting Chairman Winburn commented that the deadline for the plans to be submitted for plan check would be Monday, October 10, 1988, on the basis that the City Council took final action on the General Plan Amendment that evening. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the public testimony of the residents stating their concerns and support of the Mo 'on proposal. Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1145 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". He stated that the duplex would be owner /occupied and that the new structure would be comparable to other dwellings in the area. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he would not support the motion. He indicated that he concurred with the analysis of Commissioner Di Sano; however, he said that the Planning Commission recently spent much time and effort to provide a. minimum lot area for duplex development and that the subject property does not comply with that standard. Acting Chairman Winburn stated that the Planning Commission is not considering the action that was recently taken concerning the General Plan Amendment. She further stated that the. Planning Commission must abide by the rules that are currently in existence. Acting Chairman Winburn stated that she would support the motion, and she indicated her approval of the garage spaces that would be provided on the property. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he is aware of the rules concerning the General Plan Amendment; however, he said that it does not take away the amount of thought, • effort, and energy that went into the Planning Commission's recommended standard of 2,375 square foot minimum lot size for duplex development. -18- COMMISSIONERS Z�G�t�9fyo99'gP ym9/ October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Korade stated that the Planning Commission can base the denial of the variance on the perceptions of the need for lot size inasmuch as exceptional findings have to be made. She commented that the Planning Commission cannot apply the proposed General Plan Amendment standards to the application. Commissioner Pers6n concurred; however, he suggested that a single family dwelling could be developed on the property. Commissioner Merrill stated his support of the motion inasmuch as a new structure on the property would enhance the neighborhood, that on site parking will be provided, and that the proposal decreases the bedroom count. Ayes * Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1145 subject Noes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Absent * * CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary . circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District inasmuch as the subject property is comprised of the rear portions of two previously subdivided lots and that the resulting reorientation of the property has resulted in overly restrictive setbacks which excessively limit the amount of allowable gross structural area on the site. In a similar manner, the required setbacks have prohibited the applicant from providing the required volume of open space, inasmuch as a large portion of the proposed open space is located within the required 20 foot front yard setback. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is of comparable size and bulk to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and that the resulting open space, based on the proposed setbacks, results in a greater amount of open space than is required on a typical lot within • the neighborhood. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be -19- COMMISSIONERS yyp gin yy +' 9 October 6, 1988 y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX materially detrimental to the healthy safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks will not under the circumstances of the 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 improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the design of 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 development. 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 applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the approval of building permits. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public.Works Department. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That all vehicular access to the property shall be • from the adjacent alley. 6. That County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. -20- COMMISSIONERS 4mG�tn�.p�p9�9�9om'9i October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That sight distance be provided at the intersection of the alley with Lake Avenue as approved by the Public Works Department. 8. 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. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m, and reconvened at 9 :12 p.m. Use Permit No 3322 (Continued Public Hearing Item No.6 Request to permit the establishment of a second dwelling U 3322 unit on property located in the R -1 District. Said proposal is in accordance with Section 65852.2 of the Withdrawn California Government Code which permits a second dwelling unit under certain circumstances. LOCATION: Lot 7, Block 14, First Addition to Newport Heights, located at 408 San Bernardino Avenue, on the southeasterly side of San Bernardino Avenue between Broad Street and Cliff Drive, in Newport Heights, ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: John Snelgrove, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has withdrawn this item. Site Plan Review No 46 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to approve a Site Plan Review in accordance with • Condition No. 19 of the previously approved Resubdivision No. 861, so as to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject property. -21- COMMISSIONERS y�G "p9��9y9yT1- October 6, 1988 9y Ay�`O�O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning SPR 46 Code so as to allow the proposed construction to maintain a front yard in excess of 35 feet. Approved LOCATION: A portion of Block 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located 3841 Ocean Birch Drive, on the southerly side of Ocean Birch Drive between the southerly terminus of Spyglass Hill Road and Sea Bell Circle, in the Spyglass Ridge residential area. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: James C. Manning, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. James Manning, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Manning described the subject site plan that was on display. Mr. Manning stated that the pad has been established from 416 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the front of the property and 415 feet above MSL at the rear of the property; that the landscaping and structure was designed so as to provide privacy for the neighbors; that the location of the driveway is an adequate distance from the neighbor's driveway and does not interfere with the curve of the street intersection; that the structure was shifted easterly on the property; that a view corridor has been provided; that the fence has been constructed down the slope; that after The Irvine Company reviewed the plans, they changed the slope landscaping to comply with the landscaping that The Irvine Company will be using in the coastal area; and he displayed samples of the structure's exterior textures and neutral colors. Mr. Manning requested that he be given the option to use simulated concrete shake shingles for the roof for fire protection; however, he said that he would prefer the wood shakes to blend in aesthetically with the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Winburn, Mr. Manning stated that it was not a definite decision that he would construct a tile roof as stated in the Planning Commission minutes of March 24, • 1988. In reference to Condition No. 6 regarding landscape approval, Mr. Manning stated that inasmuch as they will -22- COMMISSIONERS ZmG9�9'y�9990 o�F� October 6, 1988 z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX be required to submit their plans to many agencies for approval, they would prefer that the approval by the Planning Department be waived. Acting Chairman Winburn stated that Condition No. 6 is a required standard condition. In response to a question posed by James Hewicker, Planning Director, Mr. Manning explained that an easement has been granted down the slope so as to provide landscaping, and that the fence is proposed to follow the contours of the land so the fence will not impede any views. Dr. J. Donald Turner, adjacent neighbor and representing the Spyglass Ridge Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Turner referred to a statement by the applicant during the March 24, 1988, Planning Commission meeting that the structure would not exceed 6,300 square feet of living space. Dr. Turner stated that the Community Association was under the impression that the entire structure would not exceed 6,300 square feet. He emphasized that the size of the • structure would be totally out of harmony with the neighboring houses within the Spyglass Ridge residential community. In response to questions posed by Dr. Turner, Mr. Hewicker explained that the garage is proposed to be 1,400 square feet and the structure's living area is proposed to be 6,300 square feet. Dr. Turner stated that the Community Association is opposing the reclassification of the subject property from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Low Density Residential." In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Dr. Turner replied that the largest structure within Spyglass Ridge is approximately 4,000 square feet on a lot that is a little less than one -half the size of 1.24 acre, the property in question. Mrs. Emily Hackler, 1616 Sea Bell Circle, .appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the Site Plan Review. She stated that the property should have remained open space; however, she said that she was under the impression that the structure would be 6,300 square feet and that a tile roof was not to be considered. Acting Chairman Winburn referred to the March 24, 1988, Planning Commission minutes and.read -23- COMMISSIONERS October 6, 1988 Ay �oy'f��o�,yo dh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX from Mr. Giovannoe's statement that the applicant and the Community Association had "agreed upon the tile roof, and that the structure would not exceed 6,300 square feet of living space." In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mrs. Heckler explained what she believed was the compromise made between the applicant and the Community Association. Mr. Hewicker briefly explained the action that was taken between the interested parties when the Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 12 and the Resubdivision No. 861 were heard by the Planning Commission during the public hearing process. Mr. Manning reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the living area of the structure is 6,320 square feet and the agreement between the applicant and the Community Association was 6,300 square feet of livable square footage. He stated that the garage is 1,400 square feet and the remaining square footage is a storage area. Mr. Manning emphasized that he did not disregard any previous agreement that was made between • the two parties. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 46 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" on the basis that the applicant has lived up to the tenor of the agreement. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion. He recognized the effort that was made between the applicant and the Community Association, and that the agreement was made and fulfilled. Commissioner Merrill and Mr.. Hewicker discussed if the staff would recalculate the square footage as proposed, and the roofing material. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant has agreed to join the Spyglass Ridge Community Association and the CC&R's may require a type of roofing material or The Irvine Company may have an opinion as to the roofing material. Acting Chairman Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She pointed out that there are lots in Spyglass Ridge that range between 9,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet and that a 10,000 square foot to 12,000 square foot structure could be built on said lots -24- COMMISSIONERS ymGFyo99�9y9yt's October 6, 1988 �y 0\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX without a discretionary permit. Acting Chairman Winburn stated that the size of the subject property is 1 -1/4 acre which is in proportion to the size of the lots in the neighborhood. Ayes * * * Motion was voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. 46 Absent * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Findines 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate off - street parking will be provided. 3. The proposed development is a high - quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 4. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within.the area. 5. That the easterly portion of the subject property will be preserved as open space. 6. That the design of 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 development. 7. That improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.01.070 of.the Municipal Code. 8. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to allow the provision of a front yard setback in excess of .35 feet 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 improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative -25- COMMISSIONERS ZmG��n��o�9ivy 9y 9.c October 6, 1988 yo�y�`aso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX intent of Title 20 of this Code. 9. That the approval of Site Plan Review No. 46 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 861, as approved by the Planning Commission on March 24, 1988, shall be fulfilled. • 3. That the design of the driveway grades be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works and Building Departments. 4. That all pad drainage shall be carried to Ocean Birch Drive. 5. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. That the landscape plan shall be subject to the further review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. 7. This Site Plan Review shall expire within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport Beach Municipal Coda. • -26- COMMISSIONERS ymG 'AN �y v v '�. py�9o2p October 6, 1986 y ` 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Site Plan Review No. 47 (Discussion) Item No.8 Request to approve a Site Plan Review in accordance with SPR47 Condition No. 32 of the previously approved Tract No. 12873, so as to allow the construction of a single Continued family dwelling on Lot 5 of said subdivision. to 10 -20 -88 LOCATION: Lot 5, Tract No. 12873, located at 5 Park Place, at the southerly terminus of Park Place, adjacent to the Theatre Arts Center, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Steven Jacobson, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to Condition No. 9 in Exhibit "A ", stating that the . applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval, and he recommended that the condition be deleted inasmuch as the Coastal Commission staff, has stated that the tract has been approved and on that basis, requires no further review by the Coastal Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n regarding why residential development on all of the lots in Tract No. 12873 are not being individually reviewed, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that after the Planning Commission approval concerning said application went to the City Council., the City Council waived the condition to review residential development on all of the lots, except on Lot 5. He explained that the applicant appealed to the City Council regarding the requirement in terms of the time and expense that the applicant would have to expend in obtaining the various approvals. Mr. Hewicker explained that the City Council was particularly concerned with the view bayward and oceanward of Lot 5, and not necessarily the views that would be obstructed from the side of the Newport Theatre Arts Center, and on that basis, the City Council ultimately decided that they would require the Site Plan Review on Lot 5, the lot that was closest to West Coast Highway. Commissioner Pers6n referred to the November 6, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting minutes regarding the foregoing tract, and he pointed out that Mr. Newberry read from a prepared statement "..that the size of homes -27- COMMISSIONERS .p .per% Or Otn yo`y�`aso CITY OF NEWPORT October 6, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX on Lots No. 5 and No. 6 have been limited to single story dwellings;.. ". Commissioner Pers6n stated that he had been contacted by a board member of the Newport Theatre Arts Center indicating their concern regarding the project based on a presentation that had been made to them by the developers in which they stated that the structure on Lot 6 was going to be a single story dwelling. Mr. Hewicker advised that Mr. Newberry had read from a prepared statement that had also been distributed to the staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 1986. He stated that said statement read as follows: "we have limited the homes on Lots 5 and 6 to a single story from existing grade thus lessening the visual impact from the park and the Theatre Arts Center." Mr. Hewicker stated that the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council showed a pad elevation of 71.5 feet, and a roof elevation of 91 feet, which allows a structure with a height of 19 feet, 6 inches within the building envelope on Lot 6. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Brion Jeannette, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the Site Plan Review of Lot 5 consists of 4,000 square feet of living area and a 3 car garage, and there will be a 25 foot backup from the rear of the garage to the fence. He explained that the structure's height was permitted to be no greater than an elevation of 81 feet; however, the actual height is 77 feet: He stated that the permitted distance from the cul -de -sac is 150 feet for one elevation and 130 feet for another elevation and the proposed dwelling unit will be below both of the elevations by as much as 5 feet to 8 feet. Mr. Jeannette explained that the elevation of 65 feet was required in order to help views from the benches in front of the Theatre Arts Center. He stated that the applicants have met the foregoing tentative tract conditions that were imposed by the City Council. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n regarding the slope of the lot, Mr. Jeannette replied that the grade of the slope graduated from 2.25 to 1, then reduced to about 3 to 1, and then flat. • In response to Acting Chairman Winburn's questions regarding Commissioner Pers6n and staff's comments regarding the number of stories of the structures on -28- COMMISSIONERS Gyyy�soy9c`�o�?ya9 October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Lots 5 and 6, Mr. Jeannette referred to the City Council Minutes dated December 8, 1986 wherein he discussed how high the buildings were going to be. He commented that he had stated that the buildings would be roughly an elevation of no greater than 14 feet above the existing highest point of the site. He explained that by taking the upper most section of the existing site they would establish an elevation that would not exceed 14 feet above that for any of the buildings that are in the view corridor. He said that the height limit was established because the developers worked with the residents living on the northeasterly side of Cliff Drive; however, he said that the elevation of the buildings in the view plane actually do not exceed 11 feet 6 inches above the highest point of the site. Mr. Jeannette stated that statements made regarding one or two story dwellings on Lots 5 and 6 would have been in error inasmuch as the developers were talking about height limit and not the number of stories. He stated that it would have been difficult to put on -site parking for a one story building on a hillside slope. Mr. Jeannette stated that the City Council permitted the applicants to remove land • off of the site, and he said that Park Place is recessed 9 feet so as to reduce the heights of the dwelling units and to protect the views. He said that the intent was that a one story building would be seen from Cliff Drive. In reference to the foregoing statement that was read during the November 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting and in response to a concern posed by Acting Chairman Winburn, Mr. Jeannette stated that what was actually said by the applicant was that the structures on Lots 5 and 6 would be one story from existing grade. Mr. Jeannette stated that the grading plan was modifying the grades to another elevation, and that the existing grades were higher than all of the grades on the grading plan. He said that what they were relating was the old grade to a height limit not necessarily identifying it to the new grade which they took from three feet to nine feet off of the top of the hill. In response to a question posed by Acting .Chairman Winburn, Mr. Jeannette stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit W', including the deletion of Condition No. 9 as recommended by staff. • Commissioner Pers6n asked if it is the desire of the Planning Commission, would the applicant be willing to 29 COMMISSIONERS \001 s October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX place posts across the property with flags so they would have an idea of the height of the structure? Mr. Jeannette responded affirmatively. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Winburn, Mr. Jeannette replied that the development's CC&R's have been recorded. Slides that were presented to the Planning Commission by the applicant during the foregoing Tentative Tract Map public hearings were shown upon request of the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeannette pointed out that the public views have been enhanced since the slides were taken inasmuch as the trees have been trimmed. The primary discussion during the presentation was how much of the view would be disturbed because of the structures, and the need to protect the views from the benches in front of the Theatre Arts Center. Mr. Bob Newberry, 535 Fullerton Avenue, applicant and developer of Tract No. 12873, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Newberry stated that the Planning Commission minutes of November 6, 1986, abbreviated his prepared statement. Mr. Newberry stated that the applicants honored every moral commitment to their neighbors beyond the requirements of the City and every condition that the City imposed upon the project. Mr. Newberry stated that before the project was started, Mr. Jeannette recommended that the development should be done in harmony with the neighborhood, that they could put some view restrictions on the houses on the southeasterly side of the property, and they could go for less density and have a better project. He explained that the property crested at an elevation of 79 feet, that they could have constructed houses up to a height of 108 feet, but that their maximum allowable height limit is 91 feet on Lot 6. Mr. Howard Tuttle, the other applicant and developer of Tract No. 12873, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tuttle stated that all of the subdivision lots have been sold. He said that the purpose of the requirements of a Site Plan Review by the City Council on Lot 5 was to verify the private restrictions imposed by the CC&R's in addition to the Uniform Building Code, and that the mitigation measures • and the map conditions would be included in the construction of the house on said lot. Mr. Tuttle stated that after reading the staff report regarding the subject item, the developers disagree with the tone and -30- COMMISSIONERS '� •Q_ �� Cam, 0� October 6, 1988 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX scope of the staff report. He stated that statements in the staff report say that the plans met the required conditions of approval of the tentative map, which is the primary purpose of the hearing, and not to rehash the development project or the other lots. He said that they have complied with the conditions, the Building Code, the CC&R's which are more restrictive than the conditions that were imposed by the City for protection of views, and that the proposed dwelling unit will be approximately 3 feet 6 inches lower than the permitted height of 81 feet on Lot 5. He pointed out that Condition No. 6 requiring a turnaround to be provided at the property boundary is the only new condition. Mr. Tuttle stated that a conflict arose regarding the removal of trees between the developers and a staff member of the Theatre Arts Center. Mr. Tuttle and Acting Chairman Winburn discussed the omission of the phrase "from existing grade" that was read by Mr. Newberry and was deleted in the Planning Commission minutes. • The hearing was closed this time. public at Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the timing of the receipt of Mr. Newberry's prepared statement prior to the tentative tract map public hearing. Mr. Laycock verified that he had recently listened to the tape of said Planning Commission meeting, and he reported that Mr. Newberry said "..limit the homes on Lots 5 and 6 to single story from existing grade thus lessening visual impact from the park and the Theatre Arts Center." Commissioner Pers6n stated that he made the motion to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873, and that he also stated at the time that "he would not have supported the project or made the motion unless he knew that the project would come back to the Planning Commission for further review. "; however, he said that the requirement to review all of the lots except for Lot 5 was ultimately deleted by the City Council. Commissioner Pers6n explained that he wanted to be certain that the Newport Heights area would be protected as the applicant said they would, and in particular, Lot 5; however, he said that he was also not entirely satisfied with the development on Lot 6 inasmuch as it is not what he envisioned or what had been described. -31- COMMISSIONERS 4, \10J19y��yo�o� October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made to continue Site Plan Review No. 47 to the October 20, 1988, Planning Commission meeting so as to allow the applicant time to stake the property and put flags across the lot so that the Planning Commission can actually see what the view impact is, and if the proposed development is as the applicant has stated, and how he envisions the Site Plan Review, then he will recommend the approval of Site Plan Review No. 47 at that time. Discussion ensued between Acting Chairman Winburn and Commissioner Pers6n regarding the poles and flags that would be stretched across the site. Commissioner Pers6n requested that a profile of the structure adjacent to the bluff be provided and when said profile has been completed, the applicants notify the staff and Planning Commission, and to notify concerned residents of the Newport Heights area including the Newport Heights Community Association so that all interested parties would have an opportunity to look at the profile. Ont * * * Motion was voted on to continue Site Plan Review No. 47 * * to the October 20, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 669 (Public Hearing) Item No.9 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the A669 Newport Beach Municipal Code, establishing regulations pertaining to Second - Family Units on residential lots in Approved the City of Newport Beach. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Dr. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association. Dr. Vandersloot stated that said Association is in support of Amendment No. 669 and Amendment No. 671. Dr. Vandersloot stated that said Association has been involved with the General Plan process and they have stated their concerns regarding an adequate balance between single family and multiple family areas. He said that it is their belief that the subject Amendments will clearly provide defined definitions to the Code Enforcement Officers. -32- COMMISSIONERS ymGgy m�Nmm9 v 9 m9� y9 oyQyoyo October 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Speaking on behalf of himself, Dr. Vandersloot stated that he agreed with the statement that the creation of second family dwelling units in single family detached areas will adversely impact the peace and quiet of the neighborhood in the City. Dr. Vandersloot also noted approval of Planning Commission actions in protecting interests of Newport Heights Community Association. * Motion was made to recommend Amendment No. 669 to the Motion City Council. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the integrity of the single family dwelling areas are important in terms of the Circulation Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan. He said that appropriate aspects in the Housing Element remain so as to meet the State Laws as it relates to housing. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he did not believe that the Amendment would jeopardize the Housing Element because it is the policy of the Planning Commission to encourage moderate and low income housing opportunities • within the City. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion inasmuch as it would not affect the Granny Unit. Ayes * * * Motion was voted on to recommend Amendment No. 669 to Absent * * the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 671 (Public Hearing) Item No.10 Request to amend Title.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal A671 Code so as to consider revising the definition of the term "Dwelling Unit ". Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Dr. Jan Vandersloot appeared before the Planning Commission during the Amendment No. 669 public hearing to state the Newport Heights Community Association's support of the subject Amendment. The public hearing was opened at this time, and because there was no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. ion 16 * Motion was made and voted on to recommend Amendment No. Ayes * * * 1 4 671 to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Absent -33- COMMISSIONERS $ p '* AI O, a ymp'Lin�yo�y�o�vy1yF. October 6, 1988 9y9 y �� o� o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX x ** DISCUSSION ITEM: Proposed Revisions to the Planning Commission's Rules of Item D -1 Procedure. Rules of INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Procedure Acting Chairman Winburn recommended that inasmuch as the office of the Second Vice Chairman is to be deleted, that the description of Secretary should also state "..in the absence of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, or their inability to act, shall preside at all meetings and perform all other duties of the Chairman." Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended Ayes * * Rules of Procedure. MOTION CARRIED. Absent 0 ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. Adjournment GARY DI SANG, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -34-