Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1998• n u n LJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Kranzley - Commissioner Adams was 15 minutes late. All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple- Planning Director Daniel Ohl, - Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Eugenia Garcia - Associate Planner Marc Myers - Associate Planner Niki Kallikounis- Planning Secretary Minutes of September 24,1998: Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller and voted on, to approve as written, the September24, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway Noes: None Absent: Adams Abstain: None Public Comments none Postina of the Aaenda: Ashley Selich, Gifford, and Kranzley The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 2, 1998 outside of City Hall. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Armstrong Garden Center (Timothy White, Applicant) 1500 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3641 Request to permit the construction of a 4,800 square foot commercial building and related accessory structures for a retail plant nursery and garden center. The application also includes a request to permit outdoor display and sales of trees, plants, flowers and related landscape accessories on a property located in the PC (Planned Community) District. Commissioner Ridgeway requested to be recused from this item because of a possible conflict of interest. Planning Director Temple stated there were no additional comments to the staff report. Ms, Temple noted the applicant has distributed (at the Planning Commission meeting) revised plans. Commissioner Fuller asked Ms. Temple if the parking was the some on both plans. Ms. Temple stated she requested the information from the applicant and he has indicated there are the same numberof parking spaces as on the original site plan. Public Comment was opened • Timothy White, applicant, stated that the drawings he submitted came as a result of the comments about the landscaping from the community at- large. Mr. White stated that staff planner Marc Myers suggested they reduce the depth of the parking stalls from 18 feet to 17 feet that would provide an additional 2 feet to the strip along Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. White stated that to make the site more efficient, they moved the building back to the property line and made an adjustment to the elevations of the building, but the size is basically the same, still a 60 foot by 80 -foot structure. Mr. White stated they took the high prow of the building that was originally submitted on the short side (the high prow of the building would run parallel with Pacific Coast Highway) and rotated it to get this elevation to face Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. White stated they made some minor adjustments on the floor plan by relocating a couple of walls. He stated the changes are very cosmetic in terms of the building. Mr. White stated the building was designed in accord with received community input. Val Skoro, of 1601 Bayview Terrace, president of Irvine Terrace Community Association and on the board of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, stated the community association did not feel the landscaping is good enough for the area, considering what the surrounding businesses are doing. Mr. Skoro stated the landscaping proposed by the Armstrong project is the worse in the area and feels the community deserves better. He stated he had a meeting with the architect and the architect agreed to soften the • appearance. Mr. Skoro stated he feels more can be done. They have no 2 INDEX Item No. 1 UP 3641 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 disagreement with having the nursery there. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Skoro what exactly he would like to see there. Mr. Skoro stated he would like to see more trees and more ambiance. Commissioner Fuller clarified that Mr. Skoro had no objections to the site plan itself but would like to see a better grade of landscaping. Mr. Skoro stated they would like to have the parking in the back but understands that is not possible. Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Skoro if he had an opportunity to review the staff report to the Planning Commission prepared by the Planning staff. Mr. Skoro stated that he had read the report. Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Skoro if he noted that the staff had recommended there be improvements in the landscaping conditions that had been proposed and that _ the landscaping buffer any view of the parking lot from the highway and did he consider that an improvement. Mr.:Skoro state&he did notice that in the report but did not have available to him the. handout that was available this evening. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Skoro if his association had taken a position on the general issue on aesthetics. Mr. Skoro stated he was speaking on • behalf of the Irvine Terrace Community. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Skoro if this issue was discussed at a meeting and the board has taken a position to clarify in what capacity his comments were being offered. Mr. Skoro stated he was speaking only as the president. Mr. Skoro said he received the notice on Tuesday and did not have a chance to talk to the entire board. Nancy Moran Sanchez of 306 Narcissus stated she is very pleased as a private resident of Corona del Mar that Armstrong purchased the nursery. Mrs. Sanchez stated she feels their plan fits in very well with the Balboa Bay Racquet Club and the Country Club and feels the front parking lots are not a problem. Mrs. Sanchez stated that Armstrong would continue to make the facility prettier than it is today and she supports the project. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. White regarding the access across the Country Club adjacent to Coast Highway, it it was a legal access or easement. Mr. White stated he did not think it was an easement but it was not something they were counting on. Planning Director Temple stated the access might be an informal arrangement related to access to the nursery site itself. She stated that, as an access way, it would be maintained since it is required for secondary fire access for the Villa Point community. Commissioner Fuller stated what is being said is that access will always be available to the nursery. Ms, Temple stated there is an emergency access there and unless there is a legal arrangement the Country Club could preclude the retail operator from using • the property. Commissioner Fuller asked if that happened, would there be INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 sufficient access for traffic circulation. Chairperson Selich asked Planning Director Temple if that is correct because the drawing in the staff report shows the Villa Point easement making a turn out towards the Coast Highway, not the Country Club. Planning Director Temple stated it was her understanding that the Villa Point was from the Clubhouse Drive but could be in error on that. Transportation and Development Services Manager Edmonston stated the site plan that is shown with the two driveways would provide adequate access. Mr. Edmonston stated that his recollection is the same as Planning Director Temple's with regard to access to Villa Point. Commissioner Fuller asked if the access to the east was walled off, would the on -site circulation be adequate. Mr. Edmonston stated that it would be adequate. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. White if there.is an opportunity to increase the landscaping. Mr. White stated yes there is. Mr. White stated by relocating the trash and delivery and utilizing the space taken up by the easement, they were able to maintain the number of parking spaces and increase the amount of landscaping. Mr. White stated that his client would not want to go below 45 parking spaces. Mr. White stated there is opportunity to do a little more and what they have provided is where they would like to go but they are open to suggestions and are willing to work with everybody. • Commissioner Fuller asked Planning Director Temple how this is quantified. Planning Director Temple stated the main area where some additional vertical critical elements could occur would be in the landscape strip between the parking and the display areas. Ms, Temple stated they could continue to work with the applicant to optimize the amount of landscaping in the parking lot. Chairperson Selich asked Mr. White if they could move all the parking so the curb ends behind the trash enclosure and take that additional area and put in landscaping. Mr. White stated that a typical outdoor Armstrong garden center has a minimum of 30,000 square feet of outdoor display areas, and that is based on years of providing different types of plants. Mr. White noted in this area there is a huge requirement for a variety of species. He stated by pushing and squeezing the outdoor area out it would reduce their ability to provide the community with the variety it demands. Mr. White stated that they would like to look at reducing the number of cars as an alternative. Chairperson Selich asked how many square feet of display area they would be losing if they added additional landscaping between the parking lot and display area. Mr. White stated they would lose about 2400 square feet. Public comments were closed. Motion was made by CommissionerAshley to approve Use Permit No. 3641 with the findings and conditions in Exhibit A, subject to conditions that have been provided by Planning staff. Commissioner Ashley stated he feels confident that • working with General Services, the Planning Department can come up with a 4 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 landscaping as provided in the exhibit that will satisfy the people of Newport Beach. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, , Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Adams Recused: Ridgeway EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3641 Findings: 1. The proposed development is; consistent with the General Plan. The site is designated Retail Service Commercial, and a nursery is permitted within this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California • Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). The approval of Use Permit No. 3641 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further, that the project is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. • Adequate access to the site is provided. • Conditions of approval have been included to control site lighting. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. • The nursery use functions primarilyduring daytime hours. • The increased landscape area along the Coast Highway property line, required as a condition of approval, will enhance the streetscape view of the property. • The existing large trees and landscape along the perimeter of the site will be kept and maintained in place and will provide a U INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 buffer to the adjacent residential use. The site design with the building set back from the front property line reduces the presence of mass along Coast Highway. Conditions: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. A minimum of 38 parking spaces shall be provided on site. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. 4. All employees shall park on -site. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works, General Services and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The perimeter property line of the parking lot shall be appropriately landscaped with bushes and shrubs to obscure the direct view of the parking lot. The landscaping shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate • of Occupancy. The entire site, including the landscaped areas shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 6. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 7. No outdoor speaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 8. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan to the Planning Department for approval which demonstrates that the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent properties. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, light fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of the light spillage or glare that can be anticipated. A timing device shall be installed to turn off the parking lot lighting at 7:30 p.m., every night. The timing feature shall be incorporated into a lighting plan prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits, this plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and shall be made part of the building set of plans for issuance of the final approvals. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified • by the plans and in this condition of approval. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Standard Requirements 1. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. The proposed facility and related parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 5. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits. • 7. 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 Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 8. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. sss SUBJECT: Katz Residence(Rolly Pulaski, applicant) 1006 Park Avenue s Variance No. 1225 Request to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal includes a modification to the Zoning Code for the following encroachments into setbacks: • 15 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback on Park Avenue s 7 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback s 1 foot 6 inches into the required 4 foot side yard setback at the alley, with a portion of the second floor living area located over the • garage INDEX Item No. 2 V 1225 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Associate Planner Garcia stated that the project is to permit the construction of a single family dwelling and the need for a variance results from the reconfiguration of the lots to face Park Avenue, which was done sometime after this subdivision had been established. This has resulted in a requirement to use standard setback criteria for this lot, and the standard setbacks result in overly restrictive buildable area on which to construct a dwelling. Ms, Garcia noted findings have to be made to approve the request, and in this case, staff feels comfortable that the findings to show special circumstances and that the variance is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of property rights can be made. She stated the approval of the project would not constitute special privilege and that the project is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Chairperson Selich asked regarding page 5 of the staff report in the Comparison Table. The project was compared with a typical lot in the area,- and even though this particular lot is larger in square footage, it gets. less buildable area. Chairperson Selich asked if this was because of the front yard' setback. Ms. Garcia stated it was because of the 20 foot front setback and the 10 foot rear yard setback. Public comment was opened. • Rally Pulaski, applicant, stated he agrees with the staff report and findings and the recommendations of staff and requests the Planning Commission approval. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to approve Variance No. 1225 pursuant to the findings and conditions. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kranrtey Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Planning Commission commended the staff on a very good staff report. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 1225 Findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of • the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program 8 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 and a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the "Two- Family Residential' land use designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class, 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 3. 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 since conditions have been included in regards to development within the public right -of -way. 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of the zoning will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning classification since the subject property is comprised of the rear one -half of two lots of the original subdivision. This results in its unusual orientation towards the street, and makes it subject to greater than normal setback requirements, which restrict the buildable area of the site. 5. The approval of Variance No. 1225 is necessaryfor the preservation and . enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant since the proposed project will allow development of a project which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because many of the homes in this area are of comparable size and the applicant has designed a project that attempts to meet the typical development pattern of the District. 6. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of the zoning and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district because the proposed project is generally proportional or comparable in size, bulk and height to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, strict application of setback requirements would result in a substantially reduced buildable area in which to construct dwelling. The granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted gross structural area will not be detrimental to the health, 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 because: • • The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the property INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 and enhance the overall neighborhood. • The proposed project will provide additional on- street parking with the elimination of the driveway approach on Park Avenue. 8. The granting of a modification to allow encroachments into setbacks will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and the modifications as approved are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: • The front yard encroachment on Park Avenue provides a setback of 5 feet, which is greater than the 3 foot side yard setback requirement along Park Avenue for other properties in the neighborhood, and will improve the sight line down Park Avenue. • The 7 -foot encroachment into the rear yard setback will provide a 3 -foot setback, which is similarto the 3 -foot side yard setback on the adjacent lot to the north and provides light and air between properties. • The proposed 2 ft. 6 in. second floor encroachmentat the alley is consistent with the permitted encroachment for rear alley • setbacks. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The gross square footage shall not exceed 2,462 square feet. 3. All vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 4. Two parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 5. The setback from Park Avenue shall be based on the actual Park Avenue right -of -way width and actual 6 foot parkway width instead of the 5 foot parkway width shown on the site plan. 6. The existing drive approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Park Avenue frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. • 7. No fences, walls, or other freestanding structures shall be located in the 5- 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 foot alley side setback. Standard City Requirements: 1. All work within the public right -of -way and the public easement shall be constructed under an encroachment permit /encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 4. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. • 5. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: 504, 506, 508 and 510 Goldenrod Avenue Eric Welton, Owner • Use Permit No. 3638 • Modification No. 4787 Request to permit the reconfiguration of a parking lot on four residential lots located in the R -2 District. The parking is not required parking for any one building or use, but is utilized by commercial buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway. The request also includes a modification to permit an existing 2 foot high block wall, landscaping and the front portions of 10 parking spaces to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot rear yard setback on an alley. Planning Director Temple stated the staff did not have anything additional to add to the report. is Chairman Fuller asked if they were concerned with the rectangular areas 11 Item No. 3 UP 3638 and Modification Number 4787 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 between the alley and Goldenrod and if they are not to consider lots indicated as parking spaces 44 through 53 and also 1. Associate Planner Myers stated that although the site plan does show the other parking spaces, they are not included in this application, and the Commission is not to consider them. Chairperson Selich. asked about a parking area at the corner of Heliotrope Avenue and Second Avenue, zoned R -2. He asked if that is tied in to one of the commercial properties on Coast Highway. Commissioner Ridgeway stated there is parking to the rear of the office building and that is one unified piece of property that does have parking at Heliotrope and Coast Highway. He stated it is his understanding that the lots have been used for night time parking for the theater. Chairperson Selich asked if it is required parking. Commissioner Ridgeway stated it is required parking. Commissioner Ashley stated there is a medical facility there and they chain it off at night. Public comment opened. Eric Welton, Owner, stated the buildings he owns were built prior to the time that parking was required. He stated he has reviewed the staff report and there is one issue that he is asking their consideration of. Staff has suggested an increased height of the wall as a means of shielding headlight intrustion into the residences across the street. He stated, in speaking to the architect, that it • would be appropriate to put a hedge instead of a wall and let it grow to the some height of the proposed wall. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Welton if the parking lot has been used historically for the two buildings. Mr. Welton responded the Port Theater has used the space because they could never come to terms with his neighbor at Heliotrope and Coast Highway. Mr. Welton stated that since the Port has changed hands, they have sent him a letter stating they would no longer need the use of the parking lot. He stated he also has an agreementwith the Mistral Restaurant for parking after 5 o'clock p.m. and weekends. Commissioner Fuller asked regarding the hedge that is proposed. Mr. Welton responded he has a planting strip between the edge of the sidewalk and the existing 2 foot wall. Mr. Welton stated he would like to tear out the old Juniper plants that have grown into the sidewalk area, and replace the landscaping and beautify it. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Welton if he would be receptive to planting a 3 -foot hedge. Mr, Welton stated it would be difficult because it would require 15- gallon size plants and he cannot get that size into the available space. Mr. Welton stated he would endeavor to get as tall a plant that he can in that area. Nancy Moran Sanchez of 507 Goldenrod Avenue stated she is pleased to see the improvements and is looking forward to the units going to go up on the other property. Mrs. Sanchez stated she is very pleased to hear about hedges • to cover the wall. Mrs. Sanchez stated she also speaks in behalf of her 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 they are very pleased and support the Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway for approval of Use Permit No. 3638 and Modification No. 4787. Commissioner Ridgeway stated this is a win situation for everybody, and the area should be landscaped with as mature plants as can be put in there. Planning Director Temple requested clarification and stated staff has some suggested language to add to Condition No. 5 to address the opportunity to do landscaping in lieu of the wall. She stated that staff would like to see and make sure that the intended effect of the wall could be achieved with hedge, Ms. Temple offered this additional sentence that would come in right after the sentence requiring the 3 -foot minimum to to minimize the impacts of the automobile headlights on the residential uses across the street. Ms. Temple stated the new sentence be, "Applicant may substitute a planted hedge N it can be done In a manner to achieve the intent of the required wall." Mr. Welton requested enough time be allowed to let the hedges grow to that height. Ms. Temple stated it is with the understanding it will take some time to • grow but to make sure that it does not take an inordinate amount of time. • Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3638 AND Modification No. 4787 Findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The site is designated Two - Family Residential, and a no fee private parking lot for automobiles is permitted within this designation. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 11 (Accessory Structures). 3. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3638 and Modification No. 4787 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing orworking in the neighborhoodor be detrimentalor injuriousto property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further, that the proposed modification related to the proposed encroachments are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: L • • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the parking lot facility. • A condition has been included to control parking lot lighting. • The increased boundary wall height along Goldenrod Avenue should minimize imports on residential uses across the street. • The existing trees and landscape along the perimeter of the site will be kept and maintained in place and will obscure the view of the parking lot from the surrounding residential uses. • Walls will not interfere with sight distance. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. • The encroachment into the rear yard setback area does not impede traffic circulation through the alley. Conditions: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan except as noted below. 2. A minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided on -site. 3. The parking lot hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, daily, and that any change to the hours of operation shall be subject to an amendment to this use permit. 4. A sign shall be posted on the subject property indicating that the parking lot may only be used by employees and patrons of the businesses occupying 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway. 5. The development standard pertaining to perimeter walls shall be waived with the exception that the applicant shall provide a 6 foot high wall along the southerly border of the parking lot adjacent to the residential lot. Further, the applicant shall increase the height of the wall 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 • • along the westerly boundary of the parking lot too minimum height of 3 feet to minimize the impacts of the automobile headlights on the residential uses across the street. Applicant may substitute a planted hedge H 0 can be done in a manner to achieve the intent of the required wall. The walls shall be constructed in accordance with Chapter20.60 of the Municipal Code. 6. No boats, trailers or other storage shall be permitted in the parking lot at any time. 7. No overnight parking of vehicles shall be permitted in the lot. 8. The parking lot shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner 9. A restrictive covenant, approved as to the form and content by the City Attorney,. guaranteeing continuous use of the entire parking lot for the benefit of the buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway, at the subject parking lot located on Goldenrod Avenue, shall be recorded in the County Recorder's Office. 10. The perimeter. property line of the parking lot shall be appropriately landscaped with bushes and shrubs to obscure the direct view of the parking lot. A landscape plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Public Works, General Services and Planning Departments. The approved landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and shall be permanently maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. 11. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. Additionally, a timing device shall be installed which turns off the parking lot lighting at 12 midnight, every night. The design of the timing device feature shall be incorporated in to the lighting plan. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. Standard Requirements 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 1. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 2. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and final approval by the City Traff ic Engineer. ` 7. 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 Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. • 8. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. s :. SUBJECT: Amendment to Districting Map No. 1 of the Zoning Code A proposal to amend Districting Map No. 1 of the Zoning Code to change the zoning of a parcel located at 511 Canal Street from Open Space Passive (05- P) to Open Space Active (OS -A). Planning Director Temple stated that the staff had nothing to add to the report. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made for approval of Resolution No. 1478, initiating an Amendment to Districting Map No. 1 of the Zoning Code. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None • Abstain: None 16 INDEX Item No. 4 Amend Districting Map No. 1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Revised Street Name for Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Area (Final Tract No. 15390). Adopt Resolution No. 1478, changing street name "Bighorn Drive" to "Maidstone Drive" in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Area (Final Tract No. 15390). Planning DirectorTemple stated there was no additional information. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Fuller asked staff if there is any cost to the City and who bears the cost. Planning Director Temple stated in a case like this there is not a lot. to change because it is a newly recorded map and the applicant is required4ca make the changes in the final recordation to the map. Ms. Temple stated there are some processing costs. She stated in a street name change takes staff time - most particularly in determining that there are no conflicts with other existing • names in the City. Commissioner Fuller asked about costs to map revisions. Ms. Temple stated if there were substantial revisions, they would request reimbursement by the applicant. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 1479, to Revised Street Name for Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Area (Final Tract No. 153900). Ayes:Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. 129. 131, and 133 Agate Avenue, Balboa Island: A proposal to change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial to Two - Family Residential. B. 1300 Dove Street: A proposal to increase the • allowed square footage to accommodate a 2,349 17 INDEX Item No. 5 FTM No. 15390 Item No. 6 GPA Initiation City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 \_] • square foot expansion to an existing building. Planning DirectorTemple stated there was no additional information from staff. Commissioner Fuller asked if it was inconsistent to vote to initiate this amendment and when it is presented not support it. Planning Director Temple stated that would not be a problem. Commissioner Ashley asked regarding the length of time incurred, and if this were initiated, does it obligate the staff to immediately undertake an in- depth analysis to present the information to the Planning Commission in a two week period. Planning Director Temple stated that this type of application is applicant driven and it depends on how quickly the applicant pulls the particulars.of the related zoning applications together. She stated then staff would process them in a normal manner. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to initiate the amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan. Ayes:Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Sellch, Gifford, Adams, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Discussionof City's provision regarding natural grade. Planning Director Temple stated this is a presentation requested by Commissioner Ridgeway. Ms. Temple stated that Associate Planner Marc Myers has prepared some exhibits using a case in Corona del Mar to explain how staff goes through the steps to establish grade when it has been altered by previous development. Mr. Myers stated the explanation provided in the memorandum provided is what the entitlement section states in the Code. He stated that typically in a situation where there is an existing residence, before the project is started, the applicant's architect would have a survey of the lot prepared to determine what the present conditions are of the site in terms of the grade elevations. Mr. Myers stated that from the plan that is developed by a licensed surveyor, staff can then make their best determination of what the natural grade of the lot is. IN INDEX Item No. 7 Discussion only • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Mr. Myers stated there are various instances as in the example provided of at Poppy and Hazel in Corona del Mar where there is a grade elevation difference in the street level of Poppy and Hazel of approximately 14 feet. Mr. Myers stated that, at the time of construction because of the differential in grade level, the back half of the lot was excavated to create a subterranean garage. He stated that, at the time the new construction proposal came in, it was proposed to construct off where the top of that was, meeting the original natural grade without being penalized for the excavation. Mr. Myers stated that since the retaining walls were put in place prior to 1972 (when code was adopted) they were able to take the height of the building from the original natural grade that was there and not the excavated surface. Mr. Myers stated that although looking at the structure from Hazel Drive and seeing a three to four level elevation that appears to be over the height limit, in actuality, it is excavated, and the height from above natural grade is in full compliance. Commissioner Ridgeway asked where the natural grade was before the construction of the house (referring to the plans displayed). Mr. Myers stated it was at the green line. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the retention wall was just holding up what was natural grade. Mr. Myers stated that is correct. Commissioner Ridgeway asked hypothetically, if it was just the opposite, and the retention wall was built in 1955 and there was dirt brought in to fill as • opposed to excavation and the natural grade was under and somebody had filled it. Commissioner Ridgeway stated this is a situation that occurs many times that is not excavation but fill, and his question is where does staff measure from and how is it determined if it was fill and what is looked for in the engineering report. Mr. Myers stated the answer to the question if it was a retaining wall and that area was fill and it was done in 1959, the height would be measured from the top of the fill surface. Mr. Myers read from the code directly. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if they are looking for an engineer's certificate as to grade, and in some instances the date has to be looked at. Planning Director Temple stated that is correct and that sometimes they cannot get there because of lack of information in which case they would come to the Planning Commission for establishmentof grade. Chairperson Selich asked when houses are being torn down, at which point do they asked for the engineer's certificate for natural grade to be done, before the house is torn down or after the house is tom down. Mr. Myers stated it would be prior to the demolition. Chairperson Selich asked if they come in for a demolition permit, and at that time get it certified? Mr. Myers stated they could ask them to pull a permit to demolish the structure but would request them to provide a topographical survey prior to that, but they are not under any obligation to do so. Mr. Myers stated then they would have to make a • determination based on what they have provided and on the adjoining lots as 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 to what their natural grade is. Mr. Myers noted that subsequent to 1972, the Building Department has records of plans that were issued, including grading plans and they would go back and use those to help make their determination as to what the original natural grade was. He stated if there was an excavation or filled surface, they would be able to use the older plans to make that determination and still use the original natural grade to determine the height. Commissioner Ashley asked if, on the house on display, someone were to demolish it and build a new one in its place, and they wanted to excavate it and take it down to the retaining wall or below the existing grade, would they still be permitted to build it up to the same roof height that the demolished house had. Mr. Myers stated yes they would. He stated they could also build•a retaining wall at the perimeter, add fill and raise the pad up and the height limit of 24 feet would be at the same location. Commissioner Gifford stated in the Commission's determination of grade, the job is to determine what is appropriate in that community given all the surrounding development. • Commissioner Ashley stated there might be a semantical difficulty as well. He stated they refer to it as natural grade, and he thinks it comes down to survey grade, the grade that is recorded at the time of the survey. Commissioner Ashley stated it is based on a land survey and what is finally recorded as to what becomes natural grade as opposed to the nature of the contour and the grade before development began. Planning Director Temple agreed that is correct. She stated the contemporary subdivision maps always come in with a grading plan, and through that process they accept that grading plan as becoming the established grade. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - on September 28, 1998, the City Council approved the consultant contract for preparation of the Newport Dunes hotel environmental impact report. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - the subcommittees are still meeting and working on their respective subject areas. • c.) Matters which a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on at a 20 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 subsequent meeting - Commissioner Gifford made a statement with regard to item 4 on the agenda. She requested that wherever there is a conclusionary statement is made to please have supporting information that can give the basis for the conclusion that is reached. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. d.) Requests for excused absences -none ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 p.m. . RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 21 INDEX Adjournment