HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1989COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
PLACE: City Council Chambers
TIME: 7:30 P.M.
o DATE: October 19, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Present
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chairman Pomeroy was absent.
Absent
x x x
EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT:
James Hewicker, Planning Director
Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney
i
x x
William R. L.aycock, Current Planning Manager
Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager
Peter Carlson, Assistant Planner
Don Webb, City Engineer
Dee Edwards, Secretary
x x •
minutes of
Minutes of October 5. 1989:
10 -5 -89
Commissioner Debay corrected the spelling of Ms. Rhea's name
on page 57, and she requested that her vote on page 59 be
Motion
k
corrected to "absent ". Motion was made and voted on to approve
Ayes
*
k
k
k
the modified October 5, 1989, Planning Commission minutes.
Abstain
*
MOTION CARRIED.
Absent
• x x
Public Comments:
Public
Comments
No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on
non - agenda items.
x x x
Posting of the Agenda:
Posting of the Agenda'
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning
Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 13, 1989, in
•
front of City Hall.
i x x
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 1989MINUTES
EW - � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH '
ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I F INOEX
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff has
requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 3076, Landing
Associates, 503 Edgewater Place, and Use Permit No. 3122
(Amended), BA Mortgage and International Realty Corporation,
309 Palm Street be continued to the November 9, 1989, Planning
Commission meeting. He stated that the following items have
been continued to the November 9, 1989, Planning Commission
meeting to allow the applicants additional time to prepare for
the Planning Commission meeting: Item No. 6, Joe Sperrazza,
Use Permit No. 3306 (Amended), 501 - 30th Street; Item No. 7,
Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors, Use Permit No.
3362, 401 North Newport Boulevard; and Item No. 9, Russell
Fluter, Use Permit No. 3365 and Site Plan Review No. 53, 2804
Lafayette Avenue. Mr. Hewicker reported that the Linda Isle
Community Association, appellant, has requested that Item No.
11, appeal of Modification No. 3599, 48 Linda Isle, be withdrawn.
n Motion was made and voted on to continue the foregoing items
to the November 9, 1989, Planning Commission meeting as
On t k requested. MOTION CARRIED.
Resubdivision No. 901 (Public Hearing)
Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of
land for two family residential condominium development on
property located in the R -2 District.
LOCATION: Lot 14, Block 134, Lake Tract, located at
221 34th Street, on the northwesterly side of
34th Street, between Lake Avenue and West
Balboa Boulevard, in West Newport.
ZONE:
APPLICANTS:
I I I I (
ENGINEERS:
R -2
Jean E. Patscheck and Richard G. Grover,
Santa Ana
Jean E. Patscheck, Santa Ana
Alpine Consultants, Inc., Laguna Hills
-2-
Request for
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
,
0 ;\Ok\ db CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Todd Schooler, architect, appeared before the Planning
Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Schooler concurred
with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A '. He requested
that Condition No. 7 be amended for the purpose of clarification.
Don Webb, City Engineer, suggested that said condition be
modified to state "That the deteriorated sidewalk be
reconstructed along 34th Street 'property frontage' under an
encroachment permit...".
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 Resubdivision No.
Ayes
k
k
*
*
*
*
901, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A".
Absent
MOTION CARRIED.
FINDINGS:
1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not
conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large
for access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision.
2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the
City, all applicable general or specific plans and the
Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of
subdivision.
3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
4. That public improvements may be required of a developer
per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section
66415 of the Subdivision Map Act.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy and
that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane
Coordinate System as a basis of bearing.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
-3-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
.a
5\ NO\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
I
I
I
L
INDEX
3. 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.
4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to
issuance of any building permits.
5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the
adjacent alley.
6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion
of the public improvements if it is desired to record a
parcel map prior to completion of the public
improvements.
7. That the deteriorated sidewalk be reconstructed along
34th Street property frontage under an encroachment
permit issued by the Public Works Department.
8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission
approval of this application prior to the recordation of
the parcel map.
9. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be
paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal
Code.
10. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not
been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval,
unless an extension is granted by the Planning
Commission.
Resubdivision No. 902 (Public Hearing)
tem No .2
Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of
R902
land for two family residential condominium development on
property located in the R -2 District.
Approved
LOCATION: Lot 9, Block 131, Corona del Mar, located
•
at 209 Dahlia Avenue, on the northwesterly
side of Dahlia Avenue, between Seaview
-4-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
.o d
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, in Corona
del Mar.
ZONE: R -2
APPLICANT: Crall and Associates, Corona del Mar
OWNERS: 209 Dahlia Partners, Corona del Mar
ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Laguna Hills
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Kent Hawkins, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Hawkins concurred with the findings and
conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to Mr. Hawkins' request
with regard to Condition No. 7, Mr. Webb suggested that the
condition be modified to state "..curb and sidewalk be
reconstructed along the Dahlia Avenue 'property' frontage..". Mr.
Hawkins further requested on behalf of the neighbors, that the
frontage trees on Dahlia Avenue be pruned.. Mr. Webb
suggested that Mr. Hawkins contact the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Department with regard to said request.
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 Resubdivision No.
Ayes
*
*
*
902, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ",
Absent
*
including modified Condition No. 7. MOTION CARRIED.
FINDINGS:
1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not
conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large
for access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision.
2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the
City, all applicable general or specific plans and the
Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of
•
subdivision.
-5-
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 198 &INUTES
0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX LLMI -11
3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
4. That public improvements may be required of a developer
per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section
66415 of the Subdivision Map Act.
CONDMONS:
1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy and
that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane
Coordinate System as a basis of bearing.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
3. 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.
4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to
issuance of any building permits.
5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the
adjacent alley.
6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion
of the public improvements if it is desired to record a
parcel map prior to completion of the public
improvements.
7. That the existing tree be root pruned, as approved by the
Parks Beaches and Recreation Department and the
displaced portions of curb and sidewalk be reconstructed
along the Dahlia Avenue property frontage, and that a
curb access ramp be constructed at Dahlia Avenue at the
alley. All work shall be completed under an
encroachment issued by the Public Works Department.
• 11111111 8. That a 5 foot by 5 foot corner cutoff at the intersection
of the two alleys be dedicated to the City.
Ell
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 198MINUTES
• o� ��
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
9. That the alley setback area be graded so that the grade
at the back of the setback is no higher than 6 inches
above the edge of the alley.
10. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission
approval of this application prior to the recordation of
the parcel map.
11. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be
paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal
Code.
12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not
been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval,
unless an extension is granted by the Planning
Commission.
•
Resubdivision No. 903 (Public Hearing)
Item No.3
Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of
R903
land for two family residential condominium development on
property located in the R -3 District.
Approved
LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 16, Eastside Addition, Balboa
Tract, located at 1023 East Balboa
Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of East
Balboa Boulevard, between 'B" Street and
"C" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula.
ZONE: R -3
APPLICANT: Roy Batelli, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
ENGINEER: Duca - McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Roy Batelli, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Batelli concurred with the findings and
conditions in Exhibit "A ", with the exception of Condition No. 5,
requesting vehicular access from the alley, inasmuch as the
subject property does not abut an alley. Don Webb, City
-7-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
0 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Engineer, stated that the condition was not appropriate and he
requested that the condition be deleted.
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 Resubdivision No.
Ayes
*
*
*
*
*
903, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ",
Absent
including deletion of Condition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED.
FINDINGS:
1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not
conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large
for access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision.
2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the
City, all applicable general or spec plans and the
•
Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of
subdivision.
3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
4. That public improvements may be required of a developer
per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section
66415 of the Subdivision Map Act.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy and
that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane
Coordinate System as a basis of bearing.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
3. 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.
-8-
October 19, 1989
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
dh \O�\ \� \ O O
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to
issuance of any building permits.
5. Deleted.
6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion
of the public improvements if it is desired to record a
parcel map prior to completion of the public
improvements.
7. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and
pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review
by the City Traffic Engineer.
8. That the existing drive apron be reconstructed to fit the
new garage and that the deteriorated sections of sidewalk
be reconstructed along the East Balboa Boulevard frontage
under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works
•
Department.
9. That a document shall be recorded to the satisfaction of
the City Attorney and the City Engineer, insuring that the
area between the front property line and the East Ocean
Front sidewalk be filled in with standard concrete
sidewalk, and that no walls, planters or other
improvements be installed in the public right -of -way
without first obtaining a City Council approved
Encroachment Permit, and that prospective buyers be
informed of this requirement.
10. That the front property comers be installed and clearly
marked to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Building Departments prior to the building permits being
finaled, and that these comers be clearly visible to the
owner and prospective buyers.
11. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission
approval of this application prior to the recordation of
the parcel map.
12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not
•
been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval,
unless an extension is granted by the Planning
Commission.
-9-
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 198MINUTES
`d d
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Planning Commission Review No. 11 (Continued Discussion)
Item No.4
Request to review three chimneys which exceed the 24 foot basic
PC Review I
height limit in the R -1 District and which exceed the minimum
height required by the Uniform Building Code.
Denied
LOCATION: Lots 6 and 13, Block C -33, Corona del Mar,
located at 2717 Shell Street, on the
southwesterly side of Shell Street between
Fernleaf Avenue and Way Lane, in China
Cove.
ZONE: R -1
APPLICANTS: Donna and Ernest Schroeder, Corona del
Mar
•
OWNERS: Same as applicants
James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that letters from
Warren H. James, 2627 Cove Street, dated October 12, 1989,
and Brion Jeannette, architect, dated October 19, 1989, were
received by the Planning Department prior to . the Planning
Commission meeting. Mr. Hewicker stated that a drawing was
submitted by the contractor showing a proposal to lower the two
chimneys on the west side of the dwelling (Chimneys No. 2 and
No. 3) so as to conform with the minimum height limit specified
by the Uniform Building Code; however, the applicants are not
proposing to lower the masonry chimney (Chimney No. 1) on the
east side of the dwelling.
Commissioner Pers6n commented that Chimney No. 1 is in
violation of the Uniform Building Code. In response to a
question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained
that Chimney No. 1 is 67 -1/2 inches high, the permitted height
is 24 inches, or 43 -1/2 inches over height. In response to a
question posed by Acting Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker
replied that the revised plans for Chimneys No. 2 and No. 3
comply with the Uniform Building Code.
Commissioner Pers6n requested a clarification with regard to
•
staffs comment that a Building Inspector advised the contractor
on June 21, 1989, that the height of the chimneys were too high,
-10-
COMMISSIONERS
ROLL CALL
0
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
and the applicants and architect are disagreeing that there was
no contact made by the Building Department on June 21, 1989.
Mr. Hewicker explained that the Building Inspector visited the
site to inspect the dwelling and made notations on the back of
the building permit indicating that on March 15, 1989, the
building was difficult to measure and a surveyor was required to
measure the height of the building, and on June 21, 1989, the
inspection indicated that the chimneys appeared to be too high
and needed to be installed according to the submitted plan. Mr.
Hewicker stated that the third contact was made at the request
of the Planning Commission on October 9, 1989, at which time
a stop work notice was issued on the three chimneys.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Tony Valentine, 29666 Cerriana, Laguna Niguel, general
building contractor for the applicants, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Valentine submitted photographs
depicting Chimneys No. 2 and No. 3. He stated that the metal
capped chimneys can be removed without difficulty inasmuch as
the chimneys block 'a little bit of view', and the applicants do
not want to cause hard feelings in the neighborhood. Mr.
Valentine stated that the intention was to install attractive
fireplace caps on the structure; however, he agreed that said caps
exceeded height. Mr. Valentine stated that he did not recall
conversations about the fireplaces or heights with the Building
Inspector until August, 1989. Mr. Valentine stated that it would
be difficult to lower Chimney No. 1, a masonry fireplace
constructed of solid concrete that has metal flues, that was built
according to a stamped set of plans that were approved by the
Planning Department. Mr. Valentine advised he followed the
guidelines of the minimum code that requires the fireplace caps
to be at least a minimum of two feet above the roof at the
closest points ten feet away.
In response to a request posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr.
Valentine marked Chimney No. 1 on the foregoing photographs.
Mr. Valentine indicated that the approved fireplace under
construction on the adjacent dwelling six:feet away, is taller than
Chimney No. 1. He maintained that Chimney No. 1 does not
block anyone's view.
• In response to questions posed by Commissioner PersGn with
regard to blocking views, Mr. Valentine explained that Chimney
No. 1 is a structure that does not affect a view plane. He
further replied that the foregoing photographs were taken from
-11-
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 1989MINUTES
\ db 1\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
the park located on Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Pers6n
advised that the Planning Commission does not protect private
views from private property; however, views are protected from
public parks. In response to Commissioner Pers6n's comment
with regard to the loss of view from the park caused by Chimney
No. 1, Mr. Valentine replied that there would be a minor view
obstruction from the park caused by the existing fireplace cap.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Valentine and Acting Chairman
Merrill with regard to the comparison of heights between the
approved roof height of the adjacent building, and Chimney No.
1. Mr. Valentine commented that the neighbors objected to
Chimneys No. 2 and No. 3 and not Chimney No. 1.
Mr. Valentine and Commissioner Glover discussed the aesthetics
of the chimney caps.
Commissioner Debay addressed the Building Inspector's statement
with regard to meetings with the contractor. Mr. Valentine
emphasized that he did not have a meeting with Mr. Dexter, the
Building Inspector, on June 21, 1989, and he commented that
reference to discussions in the staff report were between the
Planning Department and Mr. Dexter.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr.
Valentine advised that he is personally on the site everyday.
In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Merrill, Mr.
Valentine explained that he directly supervises jobs, that he
currently has three or four jobs in Newport Beach, and that he
is specifically, not generally, the only person that meets with the
Building Inspectors.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Motion
*
Motion was made to deny Planning Commission Review No. 11,
subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "O'. Commissioner
Pers6n based the motion on the fact that the sensitive property
was the site of the China House, and was the subject of a series
of Planning Commission and City Council public hearings over
a two year period. Commissioner Pers6n explained that the
property owners and other interested parties should have known
exactly what the height of the chimneys should be, that the
chimneys are built over Code, and the City's records indicate the
-12-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
'��\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
s
ROLL CALL
Jill
11
1
INDEX
parties were advised of same on several occasions. Commissioner
Person reasoned that there is no justification for the Planning
Commission to maintain the height of any of the chimneys and
he requested that the three chimneys be reduced to the minimum
height required of the Uniform Building Code.
Acting Chairman Merrill supported the motion based on the fact
that the existing chimney heights could set a precedent.
Ayes
*
*
*
*
The foregoing motion to deny Planning Commission Review No.
Absent
*
11 was voted on, and MOTION CARRIED.
FINDINGS:
1. That the approval of the request is not necessary for the
enjoyment of property rights, inasmuch as chimney caps
could be provided so as not to exceed the permitted
heights of the Municipal Code.
2. That the subject chimney caps obstruct views enjoyed by
the public from the view park located above the property
on Ocean Boulevard, and impact adjoining residential
properties.
3. That the approval of the proposed decorative chimney
caps could set a precedent for the approval of other
similar requests that would be detrimental to the health,
safety, comfort, or general welfare, and detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements elsewhere in the
City.
4. That the approval of this request would be contrary to the
intent of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, and
further, will be materially detrimental to the health, safety,
comfort, or general welfare of persons residing in the
neighborhood, and detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements elsewhere in the neighborhood, and the
general welfare of the City.
•
-13-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
A. Use Permit No. 3076 (Continued Public Hearing)
item No.5
Request to review a previously approved use permit which
UP3076
permitted the establishment of the Newport Landing Restaurant
with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment on
UP3122A
property located in the C -1 District
Cont'd to
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 296-38 (Resubdivision
11 -9 -89
No. 765), located at 503 Edgewater Place, on
the southeasterly corner of Edgewater Place
and Adams Street, in Central Balboa.
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Landing Associates, Irvine
OWNER: Same as applicant
AND
.
B. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing)
Request to review a previously approved use permit which
permitted the construction of the Edgewater Place complex,
including the Parker's Seafood Grill with on -sale alcoholic
beverages and live entertainment, and the Edgewater Place
parking structure on property located in the C -1 District.
LOCATION: Lots 1 -3, 7 -12, an unnumbered lot, all in
Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; Lots 22
and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract,
located at 309 Palm Street on the northerly
side of East Bay Avenue between Palm
Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa.
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: BA Mortgage and International Realty
Corporation, San Francisco
OWNER: Same as applicant
•
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff recommends
that this item be continued to the November 9, 1989, Planning
Commission meeting to allow the applicants additional time to
-14-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
.o 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
submit information pertinent to the operation of the Edgewater
Place Parking Structure.
Motion
*
Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 5 to the
Ayes
*
*
*
*
*
*
November 9, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION
Absent
*
CARRIED.
s s s
Use Permit No. 3306 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing)
Item No.6
Request to review a previously approved use permit which
3306A
permitted a change in the operational characteristics of an
Cont' d
existing nonconforming restaurant facility located in the "Retail
to
11 -9 -89
and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery/Village McFadden
Square Specific Plan Area so as to change the permitted live
entertainment to include jazz combos with amplified music, vocals
and percussion instruments, including drums. Said approval also
included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit the
use of tandem and compact parking spaces in conjunction with
•
a full time valet parking service. The proposed amendment
involves: a request to revise the on -site parking design so as to
delete all tandem parking spaces and thereby reduce the overall
number of existing parking spaces by two; the deletion of the
valet parking service; and a modification to the Zoning Code so
as to allow four smaller than standard employee parking spaces
and the construction of a trash enclosure, all of which encroach
into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley.
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 129 -7 -8
(Resubdivision No. 600), located at 501 30th
Street, on the northeasterly corner of 30th
Street and Villa Way, in the Cannery
Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area.
ZONE: SP -6
APPLICANT: Joe Sperrazza, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has
requested this item be continued to the November 9, 1989,
•
Planning Commission meeting so as to allow additional time to
revise the on -site parking design.
-15-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Motion
*
Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the
Ayes
*
*
*
*
*
November 9, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION
Absent
CARRIED.
Use Permit No. 3362 (Continued Public Hearing)
Item No.7
Request to permit the installation of a temporary modular office
M362
building within an existing parking area on property located in
the C -1 District.
Cont' d to
11 -9 -89
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 66 -20 (Resubdivision
No. 438), located at 401 North Newport
Boulevard, on the northwesterly comer of
North Newport Boulevard and Hospital
Road, in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific
Plan Area.
.
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Newport Harbor - Costa Mesa Board of
Realtors, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has
requested this item be continued to the November 9, 1989,
Planning Commission meeting to allow additional discussion with
staff concerning the proposed project.
Motion
Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the
Ayes
*
*
*
*
November 9, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION
Absent
*
CARRIED.
Use Permit No. 3364 (Public Hearing)
Item No.8
Request to permit the establishment of an interior design school
03364
and design studio on property located in "Light Industry, Business
and Professional, and Commercial, Area 2 , of the North
•
Ford /San Diego Creek Planned Community.
LOCATION: A portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 45 -39
-16-
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 198MINUTES
qV \\� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL 111 1111 1 1 INDEX
(Resubdivision No. 357), located at 1061
Camelback Street, on the westerly side of
Camelback Street, between Bison Avenue
and Jamboree Road, in the North Ford /San
Diego Creek Planned Community.
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: Interior Designers Institute, Corona del Mar
OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Ms. Judy Deaton, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Ms. Deaton 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.
en * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3364
Ayes * * * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION
Absent CARRIED.
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the
General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land
uses.
2. That number of parking spaces provided is more than
adequate for the proposed interior design school and
studio.
3. That the proposed site is better suited to the proposed use
than the existing location in that more on -site parking is
available and the residential uses in the proximity will not
be adversely affected.
4. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use of the property or building 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
-17-
October 19, 1989
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
•
Conditions
1. That the interior design school shall be operated only in
conjunction with the interior design studio, and that the
school shall operate in accordance with the following
conditions.
2. That the use of the facility shall be consistent with the
approved plot plan and floor plans.
3. That the total number of students and employees shall not
exceed 49 persons in the building at any one time. Any
additional increase in the number of people shall be
subject to approval of an amendment to this use permit.
4. That all evening classes shall cease by 10:00 p.m. and that
any increase in the hours of operation beyond that time
shall first be approved by an amendment to this use
permit.
5. That the applicant shall maintain the existing 49 parking
spaces in the parking lot located immediately adjacent to
the facility at all times that the facility is in operation
6. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site at all
times.
7. 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 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.
IN
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
LLL
INDEX
A. Use Permit No. 3365 (Public Hearing)
item No.9
Request to approve a mixed use commercial /residential structure
which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot
UP3365
Height Limitation District; to allow commercial development on
the site which maintains a Floor Area Ratio which is less than
SPR 53
0.25; and to allow a general office use which must be in
conjunction with an Incentive Use occupying at least 40% of the
Cont'd to
site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning
11 -9 -89
Code so as to allow the use of a tandem parking space for a
portion of the required commercial parking spaces; and the
acceptance of an environmental document.
AND
B. Site Plan Review No. 53 (Discussion)
Request to permit the construction of a mixed use
residential /commercial development containing general office use
on the ground floor and one dwelling unit on the second and
third floors, on property located in the 'Recreational and Marine
•
Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square
Specific Plan Area.
LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 425, Lancaster's Addition,
located at 2804 Lafayette Avenue, on the
southeasterly side of Lafayette Avenue,
between 28th Street and 29th Street, in
Cannery Village.
ZONE: SP -6
APPLICANT: Russell Fluter, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has
requested this item be continued to the November 9, 1989,
Planning Commission meeting to allow additional discussion with
staff concerning the project.
Motion
*
Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the
Ayes
*
*
*
November 9, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION
t
*
CARRIED.
-19-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
.o 0
0 '� �'h
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Variance No. 1157 (Public Hearing)
Request to permit the construction of single family dwelling
item No.10
which exceeds the maximum allowable height in the 24/28 Foot
1157
Height Limitation District on property located in the R -1
District. The height of the proposed dwelling will not exceed
App roved
the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. The proposal
also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow
the proposed dwelling to encroach 10 feet into the required 10
foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard; and the
acceptance of an environmental document.
LOCATION: Lot 15, Tract No. 1257, located at 3619
Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of
Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue
and Poinsettia Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R -1
APPLICANT: William H. Parker, Newport Beach
•
OWNER: Thomas Linden, Newport Beach
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Al Martini, appeared before the Planning Commission on
behalf of the applicant. Mr. Martini concurred with the findings
and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Martini submitted two letters
in support of the proposed project.
Mr. Les Aikman, 3628 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Aikman asked for the comparison of
the vertical distance between the curb and the top of the
proposed structure with the dwelling west of the subject structure.
Mr. Frank Spangler, architect, appeared before the Planning
Commission. He described the distance of the two rooflines
below the top of curb as approximately 12 1/2 feet.
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 Variance No. 1157
Ayes
*
*
*
*
*
*
subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION
Absent
CARRIED:
•
-20-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
db '\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental
document, malting the following findings:
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council
Policy K3.
2. That the contents of the environmental document have
been considered in the various decisions on this project.
3. That based on the information contained in the
environmental document, the project incorporates sufficient
mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant
environmental effects, and that the project will not result
in significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit
•
to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments.
2. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description
of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and
sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul
operations.
3. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required,
shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the
Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Santa Ana Region.
4. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall
be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of
the project design.
5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans
prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on
recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering
geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehen-
sive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent
reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading
plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the
Building Department. .
-21-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 198MINUTES
rO � N\\ o a 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
6. That erosion control measures shall be done on any
exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as
approved by the Grading Engineer.
B.. Variance No. 1157: Approve the subject variance with
the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findines:
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 maintains a very
steep slope which is significantly different than the other
lots on the upland side of Ocean Boulevard.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is of
comparable or lesser height to other buildings on the bluff
side of Ocean Boulevard.
3. That the granting of such application will not, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be materially
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.
4. That the modification to allow the proposed building
encroachments within the ten foot front yard setback, 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 said
•
modification is consistent with the legislative intent of
Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
-22-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
.4 �d �
�� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ON
ROLL CALL
INDEX
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.
6. That public improvements may be required of the
developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code.
Conditions:
1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved roof plan, site plan, floor
plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below.
2. That the applicant shall provide verification during the
course of construction that the proposed development fully
complies with the approved plans. Required verification
shall be prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor
or civil engineer prior to final inspections of rough
•
framing.
3. That all improvements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
4. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be
provided 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.
5. That no grading of the slope within the Ocean Boulevard
right -of -way shall take place which will reduce the usable
area at the top of slope adjacent to Ocean Boulevard,
and that the existing public walkway presently located
along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall stay in its
present location.
6. That an encroachment agreement be executed and
approved by the City Council to provide for the
construction and maintenance of retaining walls and other
improvements to be constructed within the Ocean
•
Boulevard right -of -way.
-23-
COMMISSIONERS
ROLL CALL
•
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
7. That a barrier or railing be constructed at the top of any
retaining walls higher than thirty (30) inches.
8. That the existing sewer located along the northerly
property line be relocated to the satisfaction of the
Utilities Department. A sewer plan shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer and shown on the Citys
standard plan and profile sheets. An easement for sewer
facilities shall also be provided for the new sewer main
if deemed necessary by the Public Works Department.
9. That the proposed roadway slope be evaluated by a
geotechnical engineer to determine the impact of
constructing a retaining structure with recommendations
as to the maximum allowable slope and the general
stability of the area.
10. That the driveway area be designed to allow an on -site
turn around with the design to be approved by the Public
Works Department.
11. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to
issuance of any building permits.
12. That the Public Works Department plan check and
inspection fee be paid.
13. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24
months of the date of approval as speed in Section
20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
14. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal
Commission prior to the issuance of building permits.
Modification No. 3599 (Public Hearing)
Request to consider an appeal of the Modifications Committee's
approval of the subject modification which involves a request to
permit the retention of an as -built second floor facade projection
which encroaches 2 feet into the required 25 foot front yard
setback adjacent to the street and 1 foot 6 inches into the
required 4 foot interior side yard setback. Said modification
-24-
INDEX
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
Jill
111
INDEX
also includes a request to retain an as -built bathroom projection
which is 16 feet wide and encroaches 2 feet into the required 4
foot side yard setback adjacent to the bay.
LOCATION: Lot 48, Tract No. 4003, located at 48 Linda
Isle, on the southwesterly end of Linda Isle
(private street), on Linda Isle.
ZONE: R -1
APPLICANT: Robert E. Gray, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
APPELLANT: Linda Isle Community Association, Newport
Beach
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the appellant has
requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda.
Amendment No. 686 (Public Hearing)
ITEM NO. 12
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 9 so as to
k686
place the subject property in either the Multi - Family Residential
(MFR) District or the R -3 District of the Cannery
kpproved
Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan (SP -6) District whereas
the property is currently in the Retail and Service Commercial
(RSC) District of the SP -6 District.
LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 20, First Addition to Newport
Beach, located at 2002 West Ocean Front,
on the northerly side of West Ocean Front
between McFadden Place and 20th Street,
adjacent to McFadden Square.
ZONE: SP -6
APPLICANT: Mark Manderson, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that because the
MFR District has not been considered by the City Council this
-25-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
date, that the Planning Commission may only address the R -3
District. In response to questions posed by Commissioner
Edwards, Mr. Hewicker explained that the earliest date the MFR
District would be effective is December 27, 1989. Mr. Hewicker
explained that the City was required to amend the zoning to
meet the requirements of the General Plan to enable the
applicant to construct a dwelling on the property.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr.
Hewicker stated that an increase in height limit in the MFR
District that is currently being considered would be similar to
the R -3 District.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Mark Manderson, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Manderson requested that the site be
designated in the R -3 District to enable him to proceed with
construction on the site.
Commissioner Debay advised the applicant that because of the
square footage of his lot that only a single family dwelling would
be permitted in the R -3 District.
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 adopt Resolution No. 1201,
Ayes
*
*
*
*
*
Amendment No. 686, recommending to the City Council that
Absent
Districting Map 9 be amended such that the subject property is
placed in the R -3 district of the Cannery Village /McFadden
Square Specific Plan (SP -6) District. MOTION CARRIED.
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened
at 8:40 p.m.
Amendment No. 692 (Public Hearing)
tem No.13
Request to consider amending Districting Maps No. 3, 8, 9, 10,
A692
and 11 to reclassify various lots located in the General Areas of
R1202)
the Balboa Peninsula, McFadden Square, and West Newport
from their current zones of R -3 and R -4 to R -1 and R -2 so as
-26-
October 19, 1989
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
A � 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
to make the zoning conform with the General Plan Land Use
Approed
Element Amendments approved on October 24, 1988 (Resolution
No. 88 -100).
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Commissioner Debay addressed Discussion Item No. 1, GPA 89-
3, Balboa Peninsula Zoning Study, and she asked how the item
relates to the subject Amendment. Robert Lenard, Advance
Planning Manager, explained that the discussion item addresses
minimum lot sizes in the R -2 District. He said that when the
Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment 87 -1,
the Commission recommended to the City Council that the
minimum lot size standards in the R -2 District be raised to one
duplex per 2,375 square feet of land area as opposed to the
current 2,000 square foot standard. Mr. Lenard advised that the
City Council requested that the item be considered as a separate
study and the discussion item reinitiates the study to current
properties that are in the R -2 district. He said that the
discussion item does not apply. to any of the properties being
.
considered in the subject Amendment inasmuch as the properties
that are currently zoned in the R -4; R -3, and C -1 Districts would
be rezoned to R -2 and R -1. In response to a question posed by
Commissioner Debay, Mr. Lenard explained that the properties
that are being considered for change from R -2 to R -1 would be
in blocks that did not meet the current R -2 Standard of a duplex
on a 2,000 square foot lot.
Mr. Lenard presented background information pertaining to the
subject Amendment and the implementation of the General Plan,
adopted in October, 1988. He explained that the purpose of the
General Plan was to balance the circulation system and the land
use system so as to be assured that the City's transportation
system had adequate capacity to serve the development that was
allowed by the Land Use Element. Mr. Lenard stated that the
net affect of the General Plan was to make serious reductions in
commercial intensities and densities of development as well as to
change some of the residential standards, and to change
residential designations on various properties throughout the City.
Mr. Lenard stated that many of the commercial changes were
already implemented through the adoption of the FAR
Ordinance that was approved by the Planning Commission and
the City Council. He explained that the subject Amendment is
•
necessary to bring the General Plan and Zoning into
conformance with one another. He stated that the
-27-
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 198 &INUTES
` o .
db V- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for with the
adoption and implementation of the General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Lenard advised that staff referred to the Assessor Parcel
Information to locate addresses of the property owners, and to
the City's water billing system to verify the names and addresses
so as to provide maximum public notice to all of the property
owners. He said that the public notice was published in the
newspaper, and Homeowner's Associations were also noticed.
Mr. Lenard stated that the staff report includes maps and block
descriptions of dwelling units indicating the existing and proposed
zones on all of the properties that are being considered, and he
referred to the maps on display in the exhibit area. Mr. Lenard
referred to page 12 of the staff report (13), and he indicated
that '100 %' of the lots between 2,400 and 3,600 square feet, be
corrected to '90W of the lots. Mr. Lenard addressed the impact
of the subdivision patterns on the Balboa Peninsula, and
continuity of land use on a block by block basis so as to be
•
consistent with zoning.
Commissioner Pers6n stated, and Mr. Lenard confirmed, that
under the existing standards, if a property owner had an R -3 lot
with less than 3,600 square feet, a duplex would be allowed; that
an interior R -3 lot with more than 3,600 square feet and 30 feet
wide, would not allow more than a duplex; and a duplex could
not be built if the lot was less than 2,400 square feet.
Mr. Lenard stated that 63% of the properties proposed for R -1
zoning currently exist with single family dwellings, and 71% of
the properties proposed for R -2 zoning are currently developed
with duplexes. Mr. Lenard addressed non - conforming buildings
and lots as a result of the proposed redistricting, and he stated
that of the total 926 lots that are proposed for zone change,
about 300 or 32% would be non - conforming and of that 300,
about 85% are currently non - conforming with respect to the
density standards that are contained in the Districts that are pre-
existing. Mr. Lenard stated that the impact of taking properties
from conforming to non - conforming status as a result of the
proposed amendment is minimal.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with
regard to non - conforming, Mr. Lenard explained that the
•
definition of non - conforming as stated is referring to properties
that are non - conforming with . respect to use, i.e.: a triplex built
-28-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
on a lot with only sufficient land area to build a duplex or a
duplex built on a lot that has sufficient land area to construct a
single family dwelling and he addressed setbacks, parking, etc.
He stated that existing non - conforming buildings and uses can be
maintained under the provisions of the Zoning Code, and there
is nothing contained in the proposed Amendment that would
require any legally constructed buildings to be removed or any
change in use. He stated that existing uses in buildings can be
maintained, normal repairs and maintenance are permitted, and
if any buildings are destroyed by flood, fire or other natural
disaster, the dwellings could be replaced with the same type of
dwelling without discretionary review, unless damaged more than
90% in which case a use permit is required. Mr. Lenard
explained that expansion of non - conforming uses is not permitted
under the Zoning Code, i. e. if a property is rezoned from R -2
to R -1 with an existing duplex, and the property owner wanted
to add 500 square feet to one of the units, the expansion would
not be permitted.
Mr. Lenard explained that changes in the Zoning Code section
pertaining to non - conforming uses referenced in the adopted
General Plan are not proposed; however, he said that staff would
come back with proposed changes if requested by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Lenard addressed the proposed zone changes for a number
of parcels that will come back to the Planning Commission
subsequent to the City Councffs approval of the Multi- Family
Residential District (MFR).
Mr. Hewicker distributed a petition and letters that were
received by staff prior to the subject public hearing. Mr.
Hewicker commented that based on the letter he received from
Mr. Russell Garner with regard to the financial impacts that the
rezoning would have on legal non - conforming parcels, he
contacted financial institutions and real estate agencies. Mr.
Hewicker reported that Elaine Joy of Associated Realty and Russ
Fluter of Cannery Village Realty informed him that they had
never lost a sale because of a legal non - conforming use. He
further reported that Ed Lee of Home Savings of America
indicated that each application is reviewed on a case by case
basis, and if the loan would not be in jeopardy that there would
•
not be a problem to finance a legal non - conforming use. Mr.
Hewicker addressed the rebuilding of legal non - conforming
structures after the structures have been destroyed by fire.
-29-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with
regard to financing after a legal non - conforming building has
been torn down, Mr. Hewicker explained that a property owner
would not be permitted to tear down an R -2 structure on a
property that was zoned R -1 so as to build an R -2 use on that
property.
Commissioner Pers6n and Mr. Hewicker discussed a legal non-
conforming dwelling's required number of parking spaces that
would remain non - conforming if a structure would be destroyed
by natural causes; however, if the property owner chose to tear
down the dwelling the number of parking spaces would have to
comply with the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Pers6n asked if there is a law stating that the
Zoning Code and Land Use Element have to be in conformance.
Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the
Government Code requires the zoning to be in conformance with
the General Plan. She explained that if the zoning and General
Plan do not comply then there would not be an effective General
Plan and the General Plan becomes a meaningless document.
She explained that the document is required by the State to
guide the City in development.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with
regard to a required General Plan, Mr. Hewicker explained that
if there is no General Plan the City could be sued, and the
Court could serve a moratorium on building permits.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item.
Mr. James Gorman, 646 Via Lido Nord, property owner at 200 -
7th Street, rezoned from R -3 to R -1, 70 x 30 foot lot, appeared
before the Planning Commission, and he asked if the duplex on
the subject property would be allowed to remain. Mr. Hewicker
advised that the existing non - conforming duplex is legal; however,
if the duplex was torn down then a single family dwelling would
be required on the site. Mr. Gorman stated that the property
value would be affected, and for the record, he asked if the
zoning is approved, would the City make up the difference in
what value would be lost. He asked what benefits would be
derived from the zone change; that he did not believe that the
traffic would be affected because of the zone change; that the
•
finance institutions would not approve the normal 20% down
-30-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
o �
�O
A '\ \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
based on the zoning change; and why should the square footage
of a lot be affected by the zone change.
Mr. Jim Harvey, 504 West Bay Street, parcel is 2,199 square feet,
rezoned from R -3 to R -1, appeared before the Planning
Commission asking if he did not approach a concern with regard
to the proposed Amendment, would he be pre - empted from
bringing the matter up at a later date? Mrs. Flory agreed that
Mr. Harvey could address his concerns during the Planning
Commission and City Council public hearings, or by letter, until
final action has been taken by City Council. Mr. Harvey stated
that when his property was constructed 13 years ago it was not
completely finished to a duplex size, and as a recent owner of
the property he has a desire to complete the project into a
duplex. He asked if a variance would allow him to complete the
project. Mr. Hewicker explained that if the zoning was changed
to R -1 and Mr. Harvey wanted to develop a duplex at an R -2
use, then Mr. Harvey would not be allowed to develop the
duplex. Mr. Lenard explained that the existing lot size would
not allow the City to issue a Building Permit today to construct
•
a duplex. Mr. Hewicker asked if the previous owner issued Mr.
Harvey a copy of the Residential Building Report from the City
indicating the zoning, the number of dwelling units on the
property, and what the zoning would permit. In reply to Mr.
Harvey's negative response, Mr. Hewicker explained that the
previous property owner is required by the City to provide a
copy of the RBR.
Mrs. Adele Beckner, 315 Fernando Street, 30 x 70 foot lot,
rezoned from R -3 to R -1, appeared before the Planning
Commission also on behalf of the homeowners on Fernando
Street. She stated that all of the parcels adjacent to her
property are the same size, and the two parcels across the street,
that are slightly larger, are rezoned from R-4 to R -1. Mrs.
Beckner referred to the letter that was submitted by the
homeowners to the Planning Commission this date, and she
reviewed the mixed uses consisting of duplexes, condominiums,
the Newport Bay Tower consisting of 40 or more units, and
single family dwellings on Fernando Street. She stated that the
concerns of the homeowners are that they purchased their homes
with the knowledge that three units could be constructed on their
property, that the rezoning would affect the property values, and
is discriminatory. Commissioner Debay explained that three units
•
cannot be constructed on a 2,100 square foot lot in the R -3
District. Commissioner PersGn asked if the homeowners would
-31-
October 19, 1989
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
■0 \� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH '
ROLL CALL 111 1111 1 F INDEX
be able to obtain a Building Permit today to construct a triplex
or duplex in the R -3 zone. Mr. Lenard replied "no ". Mrs.
Beckner commented that single family dwellings should not be
required in the surroundings of large structures. In response to
questions posed by Acting Chairman Merrill, Mrs. Beckner
replied that her property consists of three units and no parking
is provided for the two automobiles. Mrs. Beckner stated that
she would support parking permits for the residents.
Commissioner Debay commented that current zoning requires six
parking spaces for three units.
Ms. Joyce Barnes, 267B Cabrilla, Costa Mesa, property owner
at 122 East Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Ms. Barnes stated that her dwelling was
constructed in 1918, on a 30 x 66 foot lot, 1,980 square feet,
adjacent properties are large structures, the value of her property
is the land and not the house, and to be downzoned is lack of
progress. In reference to Ms. Barnes' concerns with respect to
the adjacent property uses, Acting Chairman Merrill,
• Commissioner Debay and Commissioner Pers6n explained that
zoning is required to conform with the square footage of the lot,
and the required number of parking spaces is based on the
parking requirement when the dwelling was built. Commissioner
Pers6n commented that generally speaking single family dwellings
retain or increase property values. Ms. Barnes stated that her
neighbors, Marge Shane, 117 E. Bay and Audrey Hollingsworth,
119 E. Bay, object to rezoning.. Mr. Lenard explained that the
individual lot could have been zoned R -1 because of size;
however, because the block's predominant lot sizes are greater
than 2,400 square feet the proposed zoning is R -2.
Mr. Bill Shaver, 127 Via Nice, property owner of 719 West
Balboa Boulevard, a fourplex unit, 30 x 70 foot lot, zoned R -3,
appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Shaver described
the use of his rental property and he stated that he does not
provide tenant parking. He stated that he assumed that 2,100
square feet would be rezoned R -2, that two units would be
allowed, and that three stories could be built on the property.
He said that he has no plans to upgrade his property, and it was
his opinion that the property values will be driven downward.
Ms. Marian Manser, 308 Fernando Street, zoned R-4, 30 x 79+
foot lot, adjacent to multi - family dwellings, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Ms. Manser addressed what could be
developed on her property inasmuch as the square footage of the
-32-
October 19, 1989
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
0 =CITY 4F NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
lot is just under 2,400 square feet. In response to questions posed
by Acting Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that Ms.
Manser would be allowed to construct two dwelling units and not
three dwelling units if her property is less than 2,400 square feet
and zoned R -2. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the property
owners could combine parcels so as to develop a multi- family
unit. Commissioner Debay further explained that six parking
spaces could not be provided on a 30 foot wide lot.
Mr. Cameron Fryer, 308 Alvarado Place, 30 x 70 foot lot,
appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fryer and Mr.
Hewicker discussed the time frame of an approval in concept
granted by the Coastal Commission and the date the subject
Amendment would become effective. Mr. Fryer stated that the
zone change to a single family dwelling would increase the value
of his property.
Mr. Steve Schievelbein, 208 E. Bay, 30 x 70 foot lot, appeared
before the Planning Commission to submit a letter as a part of
• public record. He requested information regarding the feasibility
of developing the property into a duplex. He asked in what year
did the R -3 zone development standards change to require 2,400
square feet instead of 2,000 square feet for duplex development.
Mr. Hewicker explained that the existing zoning permits a single
family dwelling only, and the density changed in the R -3 zone
at least 15 years ago.
Mr. Ted Barry, 409 Holmwood Drive, and property owner of
1320 W. Balboa Boulevard, 31 x 102 foot lot, 3,162 square feet,
rezoned from R -3 to R -2, appeared before the Planning
Commission. He indicated his concerns with regard to the
depreciation of his investment property. He also wants to remain
zoned R -3 in order to keep his options open, should the zoning
regulations be changed to his advantage in the future.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened
at 10:05 p.m.
Mr. Russell Garner, 205 - 43rd Street, property owner of 126
East Balboa Boulevard, 30 x 70 foot lot, three units, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Garner does not object to
the rezoning from R -3 to R -1 of his property. His primary
concern is with financing a non - conforming property. Mr. Garner
submitted a letter from Carrington Mortgage Services, which
stated the difficulty in obtaining financing on a non - conforming
-33-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
property. Carrington Mortgage Services requires a letter from the
City providing assurance that in the case of fire, a property
damaged over 50% can be rebuilt to its preexisting non-
conforming status. Mr. Hewicker confirmed Acting Chairman
Merrill's statement that the City can issue a letter stating that if
the property is destroyed by natural causes, the dwelling can be
rebuilt. Mr. Garner requested that the City submit a letter in
advance, stating that if the three units would be destroyed by
natural cause that he would have assurance his property could be
rebuilt. Mr. Hewicker stated that if the City can determine that
the three units were legally constructed at a time when the R -3
zoning allowed three units to be built on the property, the City
would issue a letter stating that if by fire, earthquake, or another
natural disaster, the property was destroyed less than 90 percent,
a building permit would be required to rebuild. If damaged
greater than 90 percent, than a use permit granted by the
Planning Commission would be required. Mr. Hewicker
commented that it may be difficult to establish within 24 hours
if the three units are legal, non - conforming. Mr. Garner agreed
to the conditions of Mr. Hewicker's foregoing statement. Mr.
•
Garner requested that each property owner be given an
opportunity to express an opinion with regard to the rezoning,
and that the public hearing be continued to give him the
opportunity to contact each of the 900 property owners.
Commissioner PersBn commented that the City Council will have
a public hearing regarding the subject item and Mr. Garner will
have an opportunity to contact the property owners.
Commissioner Glover stated that she did not feel that it would
be appropriate for the Planning Commission to give direction to
the Planning Department to submit a letter to Mr. Garner as
requested. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if a
letter from the City is required by a finance company to assist
the property owner in obtaining a loan, then it would be
appropriate for the City to write a letter based on the current
Zoning Code requirements. Ms. Flory questioned the
appropriateness of a blanket letter when there is no financing
pending or requested. Mr. Lenard stated that a use permit is
required when a fire damages a building 100 percent; however,
if the building is damaged less than 90 percent the property
owner may rebuild under the current regulations.
Mr. Hal Bird, 400 Clubhouse, appeared before the Planning
Commission in support of the rezoning. He favors reducing
density, and he commented that single family dwellings may
increase property values. Mr. Bird suggested that letters be
-34-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 198MINUTES
O
A.
41 It-\ N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
I
LL
11
1
INQEX
available to property owners with non - conforming properties in
order to reduce lending institution concerns. Mr. Bird requested
that the structures be permitted to go higher than 29 feet.
Mr. David Rosten, 1009 West Balboa Boulevard, appeared before
the Planning Commission. Mr. Rosten has a conforming duplex
on a 30.75 x 102 foot lot that is being rezoned from R -3 to R-
2. Mr. Rosten objected to the height limit being reduced to R-
2 Standards and the logic that downzoning would reduce the
traffic. Commissioner Persdn addressed the purpose of the height
limit and the R -2 development standards. Mr. Hewicker
explained that the height limit in the R -1 and R -2 zones are the
same, and the R -3 zoning is higher.
Ms. Stephanie Houghten, 1908 West Ocean Front, 25 x 75 foot
lot, rezoned from R -3 to R -1, appeared before the Planning
Commission. In response to a question posed by Ms. Houghten
regarding building requirements, Mr. Lenard explained that the
R -3 zone requires a height limit of 24/28 feet on the front half
•
of the property and 28/32 feet on the rear half of the property.
The Multi - Family Residential zoning proposes a 24/28 foot
height limit which is the current R -1 and R -2 District
Development Standards. He stated that the .allowable floor area
ratios in the R -3 District permits three times the buildable area
excluding parking and the R -2 District allows two times the
buildable area including parking. Ms. Houghten addressed the
density and parking restrictions, and she requested that the
height limit be reconsidered.
Ms. Ola Assem, 1240 West Balboa Boulevard, owner of a
fourplex on a 30 x 100 foot lot which is being rezoned from R-
3 to R -2, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose
the rezoning. Ms. Assem addressed traffic circulation and stated
her support of public transportation.
Mr. Ken Riley, 12 Veruna Court, property owner of 509 and 511
West Balboa Boulevard, 30 x 70 foot lots, appeared before the
Planning Commission stating his objection to the downzoning.
Mr. Riley addressed the height restrictions of an R -1 property;
the inability to combine parcels of adjoining lots so as to develop
multi - family units; and the loss of property value.
•
Mrs. Frances Andorka, 304 East Ocean Front, owner of a 2,400
square foot lot being rezoned from R -4 to R -2, appeared before
the Planning Commission. Mrs. Andorka addressed the density,
-35-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
0� ��
S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
transportation, subterranean parking, and the letter that she
submitted to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Andorka stated that
the Pacific Bell Central Office Building adjacent to her property
is approximately 36 feet to 40 feet high. Therefore, adjacent
properties would not be affected if her height limit remained at
the R-4 Standard. She addressed the permitted square footage
restrictions of R -2 zoning as opposed to R4 zoning, and the
height limitations.
Mr. Douglas Andorka, son of Mrs. Andorka, appeared before
the Planning Commission. He stated that the rezoning from R-
4 to R -2 would restrict the property's height and square footage,
and the subterranean parking.
Mr. Ken Goen, 316 -1/2 East Ocean Front, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He addressed the aforementioned
telephone building, and he stated his concerns with respect to the
subterranean parking, height restrictions, square footage, and
depreciation of property.
•
Ms. Edna L. Deeb, Attorney, property owner at 1202 East
Balboa Boulevard, and representing property owners located at
909 - 913 East Balboa Boulevard, rezoned from R -3 to R -2, and
128 - 27th Street, rezoned from R -2 to R -1, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Ms. Deeb stated from personal
experience, that lenders hesitate financing legal non - conforming
uses, and that the subject Amendment discriminates against the
non -owner occupied residential units. Ms. Deeb responded to the
Resolution which states "..that the Zoning Code may be amended
by changing the zoning designation of Districts whenever the
public necessity and convenience and the public welfare require
such amendment..", that the City is removing housing and
harming commercial businesses on the Peninsula. Ms. Deeb
further expressed her opinion that if a property needs major
improvement, there would not be an opportunity to get the
assessed value from the property by increasing the value of the
property, and it would be an inconvenience to obtain a use
permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Pers6n with regard to her comments regarding discrimination,
Ms. Deeb explained that when the City adopted the General
Plan that the non -owner occupied property owners were not
considered. In response to Commissioner Pers6n's request, Mr.
Lenard briefly explained the City's Housing Program, and he
addressed the opportunities absentee property owners have to
participate in public hearings.
-36-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989 .
MINUTES
� d
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Mr. Douglas Francisco, 1200 West Balboa. Boulevard, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Francisco requested the
Planning Commission consider the following suggestions: that
existing non - conforming residences be allowed to be remodeled,
modified, or added to as the existing zoning would allow; and
that the non - conforming section be reviewed since the area is
seismically active and use permits are granted at the discretion
of the Planning Commission and Planning Department.
Mr. Dick Wert, representing Emma Wert, 416 Ocean Front,
owner of a triplex on a 30 x 95 foot lot, 2,800 square feet,
rezoned from R-4 to R -2, appeared before the . Planning
Commission. Mr. Wert and Mr. Lenard discussed the possibility
of future zoning changes on the subject property.
Mr. William E. Wilkinson, 656 West Sage, Claremont, property
owner of 129 Edgewater Place, 40 x 100 foot lot, rezoned from
R -3 to R -2, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr.
Wilkinson requested that the subject property remain multi- family
residential, and he said that the downzoning would depreciate the
•
property value.
Ms. Patricia Sturdevant, 20619 Seaton Hill Drive, Walnut,
appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Sturdevant asked
if street parking permits were being considered. Commissioner
Pers6n explained the City's policy pertaining to residential
parking requirements.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Commissioner Pers6n stated his concern with regard to two
blocks being rezoned from R-4 to R -1 located on the easterly
side of Fernando, north of Bay Avenue. Mr. Lenard reviewed
Blocks R -1 A and R -1 B. Commissioner Pers6n asked if at a
later date, a person purchased a group of lots, could the City
affect another General Plan Amendment to combine the lots for
multi- family use. Mr. Lenard replied that an applicant could
apply for a zone change and General Plan Amendment in order
to be able to combine lots.
Commissioner Di Sano asked if the block between 18th Street
and 19th Street could be rezoned. Mr. Lenard explained that
the Planning Commission requested that said block be rezoned
from R -4 to R -2 when the General Plan was adopted, and he
-37-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
` o 'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
Jill
III
INDEX
said that General Plan Amendment No. 89 -3 (A) includes the
re- evaluation of said block. Mr. Lenard explained that the
existing General Plan is multi - family residential and the block
could not be considered with the subject Amendment because of
inconsistency with the zoning standard.
Motion
x
Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1202, recommending
that City Council approve Amendment No. 692, to Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, amending Districting Maps
Nos. 2, 3, and 8 -12 and accept the previously certified
environmental document as adequate. Commissioner Di Sano
addressed the adopted General Plan as it conforms with the
zoning requirements. He referred to the owner occupied
dwelling units and the transformance of the area, specifically the
traffic and density that currently exists in the area. Commissioner
Di Sano pointed out that the adopted General Plan and rezoning
would allow development to be more organized and not
piecemeal.
Acting Chairman Merrill stated that rezoning is being considered
throughout the City, and the general areas of the Balboa
Peninsula, McFadden Square and West Newport are the first
areas to be considered.
Commissioner Pers6n supported the motion based on the
development standards adopted with the General Plan. He
commented that the zoning on a parcel has had little to do with
the increase in value of property during the past twenty years;
that lenders base financing on a loan to value ratio on the
property; that the Balboa Peninsula Point Association submitted
a letter in support of the Amendment and the Central Newport
Beach Community Association supported the Amendment during
public meetings concerning the adopted General Plan.
Commissioner Debay supported the motion, and she supports the
possibility that the parcels on Fernando could be combined.
She further stated that she would support the City Council's
decision on the height requirements for the MFR District.
However, she feels there may be a problem reducing the height
limit from the R -4 Standard to the R -2 Standard.
Commissioner Pers6n addressed the suggestion to modify the
height in the MFR District, and he suggested that the Planning
Commission consider conformance in the R -2 District throughout
the City.
-38-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
a
d� �Y
a �� � \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with
respect to the Environmental Document that was prepared one
year ago, Ms. Flory explained that there are provisions under
the California Environmental Quality Act for a program EIR
which can encompass subsequent projects, and the program EIR
encompassed the subject Amendment.
Motion was voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1202,
Ayes
*
*
*
*
*
*
recommending that City Council adopt Amendment No. 692.
Absent
MOTION CARRIED.
The Planning Commission recessed at 11:15 p.m. and reconvened
at 11:20 p.m.
•
Amendment No. 679 (Continued Public Hearing)
item No.14
A6 79
Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code so as to define and regulate "Specialty
(x1191)
Food" uses in the City; and the acceptance of an environmental
document.
Approved
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff is proposing
that all Specialty Food uses be subject to a hearing by the
Modifications Committee on the basis that the operation will
provide parking for a retail use or one parking space for each
250 square feet.
Commissioner Glover requested a clarification of Finding No. 3,
"The proposed use is similar in nature to a general retail use,
and is anticipated to have traffic generating characteristics similar
to a retail use." Mr. Hewicker explained that an operation
similar to a bagel and muffin shop could be considered a
Specialty Food use and more retail in nature than food.
Commissioner Glover requested a clarification of Hours of
Operation. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager,
explained that the section allows 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for
businesses that are not more than 250 feet from a residential
-39-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
op
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
district or any mixed use residential district, and in commercial
areas hours of operation would not be restricted.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr.
Hewicker replied that if the Specialty Food use became a use
that was detrimental to the community, the Modifications
Committee would have the ability to call the application back up.
Mr. Hewicker stated that if the Specialty Food use changed the
operational characteristics in such a manner that it would no
longer come under the Specialty Food use, then the operator
would have to apply for a use permit and come to the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Pers6n stated that under the current
proposal, if there was not legal parking per Zoning Code current
standards, would the operator be able to apply for a modification
as a Specialty Food restaurant. Mr. Hewicker explained that to
come under the definition of Specialty Food use, the operator
has to have conforming parking. Commissioner Pers6n asked
what would occur in the older sections of town if the
establishment could not provide adequate parking. Mr. Hewicker
explained that based on the Specialty Food Ordinance and the
flexible Floor Area Ratio Ordinance previously adopted, there
will not be many more take -out restaurants except under the
classification of Specialty Food use.
Commissioner Edwards asked if an applicant would be able to
save time by submitting an application to the Modifications
Committee. Mr. Hewicker replied that the process would take
about half as long if an application was submitted to the
Modifications Committee as opposed to the Planning
Commission.
In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Merrill,
William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, replied that the fee
to file a use permit is currently $877.00, and a modification
application is $255.00.
Commissioner Debay stated that her previous concerns have been
addressed inasmuch as the Planning Commission has the
authority to call up a Specialty Food application from
Modification approval, and the applicant does not have to apply
to the Coastal Commission.
Mr. Lenard requested that Finding No. 4 be added as follows:
"That the proposed use is similar in nature to a general retail
use and it is anticipated to have parking demand characteristics
-40-
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 1989MINUTES
0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL 11 Jill I I INDEX
similar to a retail use." He explained that the finding gives the
Planning Commission or City Council the right to call up a
project.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Hewicker confirmed that the floor area ratio of a specialty food
use is the same as retail use.
Commissioner Edwards and staff discussed the rights of the
Planning Commission to call up a modification application
allowing the Planning Commission to call up an approved
modification application but not an application that has been
denied by the Modifications Committee.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public
hearing was closed at this time.
n * Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1191, recommending
to the City Council the adoption of the Amendment No. 679,
which defines and regulates specialty food uses, such uses to be
approved by the Modifications Committee if certain criteria are
met, including Finding No. 4 as previously stated.
Commissioner Edwards supported the motion based on the
modified Ordinance as proposed by staff, specifically the
recommendation that the application be submitted to the
Modifications Committee.
Commissioner Di Sano addressed the modified Ordinance as
proposed by staff and he stated that he would prefer that the
specialty food use require a use permit.
Ayes * * * Motion was voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1191, and to
* recommend to City Council the approval of Amendment No. 679.
Absent MOTION CARRIED.
9
-41-
.x:
COMMISSIONERS October 19, 198MINUTES
0 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Amendment No. 690 (Public Hearing)
Item No.15
Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport
A690
Beach Municipal Code to establish regulations for the provision
of low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone.
(x1203)
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Approved
James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the
Amendment combines a Council Policy and the existing Housing
Policy in the General Plan.
Commissioner Debay suggested future consideration of a housing
authority where a contribution could be made toward low and
moderate income housing by developers of under 10 units.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
there being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing
was closed at this time.
9n
*
Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1203
A
*
*
*
*
*
recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No.
Absent
690 to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
establishing regulations pertaining to low and moderate income
housing within the Coastal Zone. MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
General Plan Amendment No. 89 -3
Item No.1
Request to initiate amendments to the Land Use Element of the
GPA 89 -3
General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan as
follows:
Initiated
A. Balboa Peninsula Zoning Study: A proposal to initiate a
Balboa Peninsula Zoning Density Study which would
involve amendments to the Land Use Element and the
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, as well as the
residential Zoning Districts. The purpose of the study
would be to reconsider raising the Two - Family Residential
density standards from 2,000 square feet per unit to 2,375
square feet per dwelling unit, and also to consider
-42-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
� d
�� ��
l �' O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
changing some Multi - Family Residential areas to Two -
Family Residential. The study would potentially effect R-
2 properties Citywide.
B. Lido Marina Village: Request of The Lido Group to
amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan to change the land use
designation for the City National Bank property from
Retail and Service Commercial to Multi - Family Residential
to allow conversion to 10 residential condominium units
and to amend the area description to allow mixed use
commercial /residential development on their remaining
properties in Lido Marina Village.
C. 2001 and 2003 W. Balboa Boulevard Residential: A
request of Irwin F. Gelhnan to amend the General Plan
Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan to change the land use designation for these
•
parcels from Retail and Service Commercial to Multi - Family
Residential.
D. Broad Street Residential: A request of Allan J. Carlton,
Jr to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to
change the designation for Parcel 1 and 2 of Tentative
Parcel Map 89 -390 from Retail and Service Commercial to
Two - Family Residential. The properties are located at the
corner of Broad Street and Bolsa Avenue in the Old
Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area.
E. Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Expansion: A request
of Reverend William P. McLaughlin to amend the General
Plan Land Use Element to allow expansion of the existing
church facility by 57,597 square feet.
F. 20th and Rhine Channel Residential (formerly initiated as
GPA 89- 1[B]): A request of Paul Balalis and Charles
Pigneri to amend the General Plan Land Use Element
•
and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to change
the land use designation from Recreation and Marine
Commercial to Multi- Family Residential.
-43-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
A �
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
G. North Ford to Newport Village Development Transfer: A
request of Irvine Retail Properties to transfer
approximately 12,000 square feet from the North Ford to
Fashion Island.
H. Newport Shores Neighborhood Park: A request of the
City of Newport Beach to amend the General Plan Land
Use and the Recreation and Environmental Open Space
Elements, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
to designate an approximately 4 acre neighborhood park
in the Newport Shores area.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Motion
*
Motion was made to recommend to City Council Items A
Ayes
*
*
*
*
*
*
through H excluding Item F, 20th and Rhine Channel
Absent
*
Residential.
James Hewicker, Planning Director, and Commissioner Pers6n
discussed Item No. A, regarding the Balboa Peninsula Zoning
Study, and Mr. Lenard explained that Amendment No. 686
considered lots exceeding 2,375 square feet and not 2,000 square
feet in the R -2 District. In response to a question posed by
Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Lenard explained that R -2 standards
would be considered citywide and. in areas changed to multi-
family that were in blocks predominantly less than 3,600 square
feet, primarily between 18th Street and 19th Street.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Hewicker explained the procedure that will be followed on
approval of the subject General Plan Amendment.
The foregoing motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Pers6n stepped down from the dais because of a
possible conflict of interest.
Motion
Motion was made and voted on to recommend to City Council
Ayes
*
Item F. MOTION CARRIED.
Absent
-44-
COMMISSIONERS
October 19, 1989
MINUTES
1p CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add' i
Business
Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Edwards
Ayes * * * * * * from the November 9, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Edwards
Absent MOTION CARRIED. Excused
•
I*
ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 p.m.
JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
-45-