Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1988COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers o .o TIME: 7:30 p.m. ym �i �9N�9 y y m DATE: October 20, 1988 G9ta�o Gy�C 4+a�yo� ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of October 6. 1988: Minutes of Commissioner Merrill referred to page 15 of the subject 10 -6 -88 • Planning Commission minutes, and he requested that October 24, 1988, be corrected to October 20, 1988. Motion Ayes Abstain * * * * * * * Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended October 6, 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the A eg nda: Posting of the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 14, 1988, in front of City Hall. Request to consider rescheduling the Regular Planning Item D-1 Commission Meeting of November 10. 1988, INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Reschedule PC Meeting to James Hewicker, Planning Director, deferred to 11 -9 -88 Discussion Item No. 1 requesting that the Planning Commission consider rescheduling the next Planning COMMISSIONERS yBG t t�9Ntey9 y v October 20, 1988 y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commission meeting from November 10, 1988 inasmuch as Friday, November 11, 1988, is a national holiday. Motion * Following discussion by the Planning Commission, motion All Ayes was made to reschedule the November 10, 1988, Planning Commission meeting to Wednesday, November 9, 1988. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Request for Continuances: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that one of Continuanc, the property owners, Donald G. Griswold, has requested that Item No. 1, Lot Line Adjustment No. 88 -2, property located at 2340 Bayside Drive, be removed from calendar; that the applicant, Josephine Ioffrida, has requested that Item No. 2, Resubdivision No. 884, property located at 408 and 410 East Balboa Boulevard, be continued to the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting; and that the applicant, Robert Forstrom, has requested that • Item No. 8, Use Permit No. 3329, regarding an application to establish a restaurant located at 400 Newport Center Drive, be continued to the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * In reference to the foregoing requests, motion was made All Ayes and voted on to continue Items No. 2 and 8 to the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Lot Line Adjustment No. 88 -2 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to adjust a lot line between contiguous LLA 88 -2 residential parcels in Corona del Mar. LOCATION: Parcels 1 and 2, Resubdivision No. 2, located at 2340 Bayside Drive, on the northerly side of Bayside Drive; and a portion of abandoned Pacific Drive, located at 2333 Pacific Drive, on the southerly side of Pacific Drive, adjacent to Begonia Park, in Corona del Mar. • ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Donald G. Griswold, Newport Beach and Margaret H. Simpson, Corona del Mar -2- COMMISSIONERS October 20, 1988 40 �y 1op0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER: Pete J. Duca, Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that one of Removed the applicants, Donald G. Griswold, has requested that from this item be removed from calendar. Calendar Resubdivision No. 884 (Continued Public Hearing) Item.No.2 Request to resubdivide two existing lots into two 8884 parcels of land for two unit residential condominium purposes, on property which is to be rezoned from the C- Continued 1 District to the R -2 District. Said resubdivision also to includes a request to adjust the location of the 11 -9 -88 interior common property line so as to maintain a minimum area greater than 2,375 sq.ft. for both parcels. LOCATION: Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, Balboa Tract, located at 408 and 410 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between Cypress Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Josephine Ioffrida, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Balboa Pacific, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to All Ayes November 9, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. • -3- COMMISSIONERS ` yBG �` 1 t� v y �'9f�, October 20, 1988 yy � f7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission Review No. 8 (Discussion) Item No.3 Request to review a proposed chimney which exceeds the pc Review 24 foot basic height limit in the R -2 District and which No. 8 exceeds the minimum height required by the Uniform .Building Code. Approved LOCATION: Lot 36, Subdivision of Block A, East Newport Tract, located at 113 East Edgewater Avenue, on the southerly side of East Edgewater Avenue, between Montero Avenue and Anade Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Gordon Glass, Newport Beach OWNER: Van Kelsey, Balboa James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that skylights are considered a separate roof surface when the height of a building is calculated, and that in most cases skylights are at or below the ridge height of a building. Mr. Hewicker explained that architectural features are considered as separate roof planes, and he suggested that the Planning Commission consider if they want skylights to be dealt with in the same manner as architectural features. The item was opened for discussion, and Mr. Gordon Glass, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Glass explained that the subject plans had been approved for a building permit after plan check was completed, when he had been contacted that additional corrections were needed to be made to the plans. Mr. Glass advised that he had previously submitted plans on projects that were approved that had skylights that did not exceed the ridge of the roof but they were in the upper portion of the roof, and he questioned the present policy used for evaluating sloped roofs and their relationship to the height limit. In reference to the proposed project, Mr. Glass explained that the two skylights can be moved down the slope of the roof from about six inches above the ridge • to the roof ridge to comply with the current standards. Mr. Glass maintained that a skylight should be considered a part of the entire roof assembly as long as the skylight does not project above the permitted ridge -4- COMMISSIONERS yO c^c� Nm m(��F�yNp'p9CgQ9yQ9JC October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX height or the skylight does not impede a neighbor's view. Commissioner Pers6n stated that to consider a skylight on a pitched roof differently does not make sense in .calculating roof .height when the skylight does not Motion * impede a view. Motion was made to approve Planning Commission Review No. 8 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including deleting Condition No. 2 which states "that the height of the skylights shall be reduced so as to conform to the City's Height Limitation Ordinance." Commissioner Pers6n stated that he does not agree that the request for chimneys to exceed the 24 foot basic height limit and exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code should be a citywide policy. Commissioner Merrill explained that as a member of an architectural committee, he was familiar with the numerous design features of skylights, and that he would • not support the request as a citywide policy. Commissioner Debay stated that she agrees that each case needs to be considered on a case by case basis. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Glass replied that the subject skylights do not open and are not fastened by a latch. Mr. Glass suggested that the skylight in any attainable position not project above the ridge of the roof. Chairman Pomeroy concurred that the skylight should not project above the ridge when it is fully opened or extended, and he commented that he had a concern that a skylight could obstruct a view. Chairman Pomeroy suggested that each case needs to be considered on an individual basis. Mr. Glass stated that there is not a regulation that restricts the orientation of the ridge of a roof in any direction; however, he said that if that were not the case, then he would agree with the concerns regarding a neighbor's view. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Glass referred to his letter to the Planning Commission dated September 16, 1988, expressing his concerns regarding the spark arresters on the top of chimneys. Discussion ensued between Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Glass regarding the spark arresters that are currently being marketed. -5- COMMISSIONERS ymGc^��v�99v 9 October 20, 1988 yy9 oy f�ysyo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion was voted on to approve Planning Commission Review No. 8 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including deletion of the foregoing All Ayes Condition No. 2. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed decorative chimney cap will present a more pleasant appearance than a plain metal cap. 2. That the height of the chimney will not be out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood, inasmuch as the adjacent property is occupied by a large three story structure. 3. That the decorative chimney cap will not intrude on views, light, or air, from adjoining residential property. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved elevations, except as noted below. 2. Deleted. 3. That the chimney shall conform with the City's Building Code,_ Use Permit No. 3169 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3169 permitted the installation of a temporary modular building with 9,924 ± square feet of net floor area to Approved be used for interim office space in the M -1 -A District. The proposed amendment involves a request to delete Condition of Approval No. 2 that limited the use of said modular building to 3 years, so as to allow the continued use of the temporary building for office purposes. LOCATION: Portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine's . Subdivision, located at 500 Superior Avenue, on the southeasterly side of 6 COMMISSIONERS g.oq:tFOro� �9o�p99 9 October 20, 1988 �y o� y �o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Superior Avenue between Dana Road and Industrial Way adjacent to the City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Hughes Aircraft Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. R. J. McDonald, Facilities Manager, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. McDonald stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. McDonald replied that no complaints have been expressed regarding the temporary facility. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards • regarding Condition No. 2, the request to remove the underground fuel tank, and if there has been a test for underground seepage, Mr. McDonald replied that the results of a test taken indicated that there was no seepage problem. Commissioner Winburn stated that she opposes temporary structures, and she pointed out that the applicant had requested and the Planning Commission approved Condition No. 2 of the original Use Permit No. 3169, dated October 10, 1985, that the temporary structure would be permitted for three years. Commissioner Winburn made a Motion motion to approve Use Permit No. 3169 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" inasmuch as Condition No. 2 requires the fuel tank to be removed in less than three years and the temporary building removed from the site. Commissioner Pers6n concurred with the foregoing statement. He requested that the motion state that the temporary structure shall be removed 24 months from the effective date of approval, and that the condition will further state that this would be the last time that the request will be considered for the temporary use. • The maker of the motion concurred with the foregoing amendment to the motion inasmuch as the applicant has stated that the facility is only needed until mid 1990. -7- COMMISSIONERS yaG 9o99�y�yti October 20, 1988 yy9 y �` as o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion ensued regarding the expiration date of the subject request. Commissioner Winburn explained that the applicants would be permitted a total of five years for the temporary use of the structure dated from October 10, 1985, to November 11, 1990. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3169 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 2 stating that the existing temporary building shall be permitted until November 11, 1990, emphasizing that the request All Ayes will not be extended beyond said date. MOTION CARRIED. Findines• 1. That the continued use of the temporary building is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant • environmental impact. 3. Adequate parking is provided on -site in conjunction with the temporary building. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3169 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3169 shall be fulfilled. 2. That the continued use of the existing temporary building shall be permitted and final until November 11, 1990. At such time, the temporary building shall be removed from the site, the underground fuel tank shall be removed, and the property restored to its original condition. 3. That the applicant shall abandon the existing • underground diesel tank within 60 days from the effective date of approval, in a manner acceptable to the Newport Beach Fire Department and Building Department. -8- COMMISSIONERS A af. Or Otn ymGc^�yN�99 v 9 October 20, 1988 y 90 �y yp�yo y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3071 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3071A allowed the expansion of the operational characteristics of the existing Newport Beach Tennis Club. The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a new locker Approved room and fitness center for the exclusive use of tennis club members. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Lot 66, Tract No. 6905, located at 2601 Eastbluff Drive, on the westerly side of Eastbluff Drive, between Vista del Oro and Vista del Sol, in the Bluffs. ZONES: R- 4 -B -2, P -R -D and C -N -H APPLICANT: Newport Beach Tennis Club, Newport Beach OWNER: William K. Parker, Newport Beach Commissioner Edwards stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bill Parker, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Parker requested approval of the fitness center, and he said that the applicants will attempt to work with the neighbors. Mr. Bernard Pegg, 2633 Bamboo Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he adhered to his remarks during the September 22, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Pegg repeated that his primary concern is when will the requests for expansion to the Newport Beach Tennis Club cease, inasmuch as they have been expanding over the past 22 years. Mr. Edward H. Stone, 2627 Bamboo Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Stone referred to Condition No. 11 requesting that the size of aerobic classes be limited so as not to create an on -site parking problem and he asked what is the class limit? In reference to Condition No. 6 requesting that the doors and windows be closed during the operation of the fitness center, he asked if the fitness center will be -9- COMMISSIONERS smG�y��NOyCC�so October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX sound proofed and air conditioned? Mr. Stone stated that he is concerned that the Newport Beach Tennis Club continues to apply for expansions. Mr. Parker reappeared before the Planning Commission to address the foregoing concerns. He explained that the fitness center will be air conditioned, that no windows will be able to open, and that the building will be sound proofed. In reference to the size of the aerobic classes, Mr. Parker stated that the classes of 30 to 35 participants are proposed, and that said classes will not be held during the peak hours of the Newport Beach Tennis Club. James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the neighbors' concerns regarding the continued expansion of the Newport Beach Tennis Club. He explained that the Newport Beach Tennis Club is governed by the conditions of the use permit, that under those conditions the applicant is limited to the types of activities that they are allowed to have and to the extent that they are . able to do said activities. Mr. Hewicker further explained that the applicants are required to come back to the Planning Commission and amend the use permit so as to allow additional uses that have not been permitted in the past. Mr. Hewicker concluded that, legally, the applicants cannot be instructed not to come back to the Planning Commission to amend their use permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay referred to Condition No. 9 which states that the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of the use permit or recommend revocation of the use permit upon a determination that the operation is detrimental to the peace of the community. Motion Motion * was made to approve Use Permit No. 3071 (Amended) and related environmental document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Merrill stated that he would not support the motion inasmuch as the fitness center is a different use than was originally presented to the community, and he maintained that said Tennis Club should not be amending the use permit to include additional uses. He . indicated that the expansion will require some loss to the landscaping and will add more asphalt, and that the use will generate additional morning traffic. Commissioner Merrill concluded that the Newport Beach -10- COMMISSIONERS October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Tennis Club should not expand any further in the residential area. Ayes * * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3071 No * (Amended) and related environmental document. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making 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 Cuidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents' of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. B. Use Permit No. 3071 (Amended): Findines• 1. That the existing tennis club and proposed fitness center are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and are compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 3. The proposed number of compact car spaces constitutes 25.3 percent of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3071 (amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or • injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the modification for compact parking is consistent with the legislative intent of Title -11- COMMISSIONERS 1OG��9�Qy9'v�N9y October 20, 1988 y y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the aerobic activities associated with the proposed fitness center will be scheduled so as not to conflict with the peak periods of daily tennis court use, and during major tournaments on the property. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below.. 2. That all previously applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3071 and Use Permit No. 3071 (Amended August 27, 1984) and Use Permit No. 3071 (Amended October 22, 1987) shall be fulfilled. 3. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall prepare a revised parking plan which incorporates all of the design changes required by the City Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall be prepared and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. That the design and grading of the new satellite parking area shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the hours of operation of the proposed fitness center shall be limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 10 :00 p.m. Saturday, Sunday and national holidays. 6. That all music from the aerobic /dance activity shall be confined to the interior of the building and that all doors and windows of said building shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of the fitness center. • 7. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified -12- COMMISSIONERS ymG'L��yN�9y y 9 October 20, 1988 y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX with one handicapped sign on a post for each handicapped space. 8. That the operation of the proposed fitness center shall be for the exclusive use of the tennis club membership and shall not be open to the general public. 9. 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. 10. That 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. 11. That the size of classes and the hours of operation of the aerobic facility shall be limited so as not to create an on -site parking problem for the tennis club facility. 12. That the aerobic classes shall not be scheduled during peak tennis court use which will include the following hours as a minimum: 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon Saturday, Sunday and national holidays. In addition, the aerobic classes shall not be scheduled during major club tennis tournaments, special tournaments, and swim meets on the property. 13. That no car washing or detailing operation shall be permitted on -site, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. Amendment No. 670 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal • Code, establishing regulations pertaining to Granny Units on residential lots in the City of Newport Beach. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -13- COMMISSIONERS ymG 9o9��y�ytigx October 20, 1988 �y9 yf�oe,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the A670 addendum to the staff report regarding a suggested change to the building height of a detached granny unit Continued that would conform to the height limit provisions of the to 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. In further reference to 11 -9 -88 the addendum, Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has recommended that recordation of a granny unit be expanded to include, within the documentation, all of the conditions of approval that would be imposed by the Planning Commission and the City Council at such time as the deed restriction was recorded against the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, explained that staff is recommending an annual review of granny units to enable the enforcement of the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Pers6n stated that his intent to include the conditions of approval in the deed restriction filed with the County Recorder is that the property owner, future property owners, and the neighbors would be put • on notice that if the City found that the granny unit were being occupied by an unqualified occupant and is being used as a second dwelling unit which is prohibited in the City, the Planning Commission may call the use permit back up for revocation and request that the structure be removed under the powers granted under the use permit. In reference to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the proposed Section 20.78.040, Termination of Use, and if the granny unit is terminated, is it the intent to remove the structure or to convert the kitchen to another use? Discussion ensued between Commissioner Pers6n and Mr. Hewicker regarding Commissioner Pers6n's concern that the granny unit could be converted to an illegal second dwelling unit. Commissioner Pers6n emphasized that the property owner of an illegal unit should be penalized. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Commissioner Pers6n replied that he does not have a problem with Section 20.78.040 as it is currently worded. Chairman Pomeroy asked if the occupant of the granny unit no longer resides in the unit, could the unit remain as a part of the single family dwelling unit? • Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the definition.of "dwelling unit" and the qualifications to reside in a granny unit in an R -1 District. Mr. Hewicker concluded that if the property -14- COMMISSIONERS 'i6i '0 •0 �i�G�Q� October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX owner does not have a family member who would be qualified to reside in the granny unit, or the property owner does not have a desire to rent the granny unit to another individual 60 years of age or older, and he wants to remove the deed restriction from the property, then the property owner would be required to modify the structure so that only one dwelling unit would be located on the site. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Edwards and Commissioner Debay regarding the allotted time that would be given the property owner after the granny unit becomes vacant, Commissioner Debay referred to Section 20.78.030, Verification of Occupancy, and suggested that the following be added: "..and at the demise, the City be notified and reapplication be given for a new tenant." Commissioner Edwards suggested that the statement be modified to state "..any time there is a change of occupancy there be an immediate notification to the City." • Commissioner Pers6n and Ms. Korade discussed civil and criminal penalties that could be considered if there would be a violation to the Granny Unit Ordinance. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bill Dunlap, a Director of the Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dunlap suggested that the restrictions be so difficult that a property owner would be discouraged from building a unit, and he maintained that a finding could be made that the granny units could be deemed hazardous to the neighborhood. He feared that granny units have the potential to become "bootleg" units. Mr. Dunlap questioned if granny units could be properly policed by the neighbors. Discussion ensued between Mr. Dunlap and Ms. Korade regarding the provisions in the Cliff Haven Community Association's CC&R's which state that only one dwelling unit can be developed on an R -1 lot. Ms. Korade explained that CC&R's are private deed restrictions, and the City's power to allow granny units does not affect private CC&R's. Ms. Korade further explained that there is a possible preemption problem regarding the State Ordinance and age discrimination if there would be an attempt to enforce the CC&R's. She stated that it is not the jurisdiction of the City to enforce, override, or approve the CC&R's, but that it is an issue between two private parties or between the State Law and the property owners. She said that it is not within the -15- COMMISSIONERS 0 0 Z9o�0y October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX City's power to enforce the CC6R's. Mr. Dunlap stated that the City of Costa Mesa requires two parking spaces per granny unit. Commissioner Pers6n stated that inasmuch as the Planning Commission approved an Ordinance prohibiting Second Family Dwelling Units, there may be a responsibility of the City's Housing Element to pass an Ordinance that permits granny units. Discussion ensued between Mr. Dunlap and Commissioner Pers6n regarding a detached granny unit as opposed to an attached granny unit in an R -1 District. Mr. Dunlap stated that a granny unit attached to an existing dwelling would be more acceptable in an R -1 neighborhood. Mr. Dunlap suggested that the proposed Granny Unit Ordinance require the granny unit be attached to an existing dwelling. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the residents of the granny unit and of the single family dwelling may not want to reside in one building. In response to Mr. Dunlap's concerns that there are property owners who would take advantage of a loophole in the law, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Cliff Haven Community Association has the ability to enforce the CC&R's in their community that would prohibit granny units. Ms. Jeanine Gault, 406 San Bernardino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Gault requested that the Planning Commission apply as many restrictions to the Granny Unit Ordinance as possible, and she stated that she is concerned that illegal units will be converted to legal granny units. Mr. Hewicker explained the criteria that would be required by the City to legalize a unit to a granny unit. Commissioner Pers6n questioned if a provision could be included in the Granny Unit Ordinance that would not permit a conversion of an illegal unit into a granny unit? Ms. Korade explained that the provision would be attempting to penalize an individual for prior illegalities on a site by not legalizing the illegal • unit. Mr. Hewicker indicated that an interested party may consider purchasing a property consisting of an illegal unit so as to convert said unit into a granny unit for a family member. 16- COMMISSIONERS ym6c^9oy9�yy9y October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Korade stated that there is no provision that clearly states that a granny unit must be an attached or detached unit, and she referred to 65852.1 Granny Housing of the State Zoning Law which states that "any city ... may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling unit to be constructed, or attached to, a primary residence.." indicating that there is a possibility that a granny unit may be detached. In reference to State Law 65852.2. Ms. Korade read that "no additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a City can require that the subdivision be owner /occupied.. ", and that it was her opinion that it is implicit in the State Zoning Code that the granny unit can be detached. In reference to enforcement of the provisions required in the proposed Ordinance, Ms. Korade advised that infractions can be enforced in accordance with the Municipal Code. Ms. Gault recommended that two parking spaces per granny unit be required so as to deter property owners from developing said units. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Korade, and Mr. Hewicker regarding how the violations could be penalized, and it was explained that the violation could ultimately end up in court and the penalty would be imposed by a judge. Commissioner Edwards stated that he has a concern regarding how the occupant would be removed from an illegal unit. Commissioner Edwards maintained that the Planning Commission needs to address the manner of enforcement of Motion * the statute. Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1988. He recommended that every six months the owner of the granny unit come back to the City with the required verification of occupancy, and then if a violation is found, the property owner would need to be penalized. Commissioner PersGn concurred with the foregoing statements and he supported the motion to continue the • item. He suggested that the owner of the granny unit sign a declaration under penalty of perjury each time a statement is filed, and he requested that the staff obtain information from the City of Costa Mesa 17 COMMISSIONERS yBG'i 9N 99 y y October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX concerning the granny unit parking requirements. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he wants to be certain that the Planning Commission is complying with State Law, and at the same time to do what is necessary to protect the integrity of the General Plan, and the zoning in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Hewicker discussed a provision to include in the Ordinance that when a change of tenancy occurs that the property would be required to comply with the current rules and regulations. Mr. Hewicker commented that there is a similar condition currently contained in the use permits for granny units stating that the applicants agree to abide by any changes that the City ultimately adopts which will bring the properties into compliance. Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Hewicker discussed the City's recommendation that the granny unit and the existing dwelling unit provide three parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker commented that there are instances when the occupants of granny units no longer have a driver's . license or operate a vehicle. All Ayes Motion was voted on to continue Amendment No. 670 to the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Use Permit No. 3326 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Up3326 Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling unit (Granny Unit) on property located in the R -1 District in accordance with the provisions of Section Approved 65852.1 of the California Government Code that permits a second dwelling if said residence is intended for one or two persons who are 60 years of age or over. LOCATION: Lot 61, Tract No. 1220, located at 424 Pirate Road, on the easterly side of Pirate Road, between Clay Street and Cliff Drive, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R -1 -18- COMMISSIONERS ymGc� October 20, 1988 yy9 °y �� os o a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANTS: Charles R. and Mildred M. Thompson, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, recommended that Condition No. 5, Exhibit "A ", requesting "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." be deleted inasmuch as the Public Works Department has stated that the condition is not necessary for a granny unit. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Pers6n, Commissioner Di Sano, and Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, pertaining to the possibility of continuing the subject use permit until after the Planning Commission has adopted criteria for the proposed Granny Unit Ordinance on November 9, 1988. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Charles R. Thompson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson stated that the proposed granny unit will be attached to the existing dwelling unit to allow his in -laws access to the entire house. Mr. Thompson stated that the proposed plan has been approved by the adjacent neighbors and the Cliff Haven Community Association. He said that there is parking available on -site for five automobiles. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Thompson stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Thompson requested to proceed with the public hearing as opposed to continuing it until after the Granny Unit Ordinance has been adopted. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Winburn, Commissioner Pers6n, and Ms. Korade regarding new information that may be imposed during the proposed Granny Unit Ordinance proceedings that would apply to the subject use permit. Reference was made to Condition of Approval No. 3 in Exhibit "A" which states "...and committing the permittee and successors to comply with ordinances regarding Granny Units that may be adopted in the future." Commissioner Pers6n advised Mr. Thompson that different standards may apply after the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting when the Granny Unit Ordinance is adopted by the Planning Commission, and he -19- COMMISSIONERS October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX asked if the applicant would concur to those standards? Mr. Thompson replied that he would agree to abide by the regulations of the proposed Ordinance inasmuch as he is in agreement with the concerns that Mr. Bill Dunlap, member of the Board of Directors of the Cliff Haven Community Association, expressed during the public hearing pertaining to Amendment No. 670, regarding the adoption of Granny Units. Mr. Joe Gallant, 424 St. Andrews Road, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the subject use permit. Mr. Gallant stated that the proposal is in conflict with the Cliff Haven Community Association's CC&R's; that the community would lose the character of a single family residential area; and that when the Planning Commission rezoned the residences on St. Andrews Road from R -3 to R -2 Zoning, the reason was to correct the density on the street. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Gallant replied that he had not seen the proposed • plans; however, if the applicant was attaching the granny unit to the existing dwelling, why not just add an addition? Commissioner Debay explained that the occupants of the granny unit requested a separate cooking area, and that they wanted to maintain some degree of privacy. Commissioner Debay stated that inasmuch as not enough senior housing is being adequately provided for Newport Beach families, there is a need to address senior housing on a case by case basis. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3326 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the deletion of the aforementioned Condition No. 5, and to put the applicant on notice that recordation for the granny unit is required and that the applicant has agreed to abide by further regulations subsequent to the adoption of the Granny Unit Ordinance. Commissioner Pers6n requested that the motion be amended so the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council be provided in the recorded • Covenant. The maker of the motion agreed to the amended motion. -20- COMMISSIONERS ymG yo9y�y�y %yam October 20, 1988 o� o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3326 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including an amended Condition No. 3, and the deletion of Condition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3326 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to • the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the second dwelling unit shall be for rental purposes only and shall be limited to the use of one or two persons over the age of 60 years. 3. That the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or two adults 60 years of age or over, and committing the permittee and successors to comply with ordinances regarding granny units that may be adopted in the future. • Said Covenant shall also contain all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council. -21- COMMISSIONERS October 20, 1988 y �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Deleted. 6. That the Granny Unit shall be enlarged slightly so as to satisfy the minimum dwelling unit size of 600 sq.ft. provided in the Municipal Code. However, the Granny Unit shall not exceed a floor area of 640 square feet. 7. That one independently accessible garage space shall be provided for the.Granny Unit at all times. 8. That 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. Use Permit No. 3329 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to establish a restaurant within an existing UP3329 medical office building on property located in the Block 400 Planned Community. The proposal also includes a Continued request to waive a portion of the required off street to parking spaces. 11 -9 -88 LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 83 -729 (Resubdivision No. 766), located at 400 Newport Center Drive, on the easterly side of Newport Center Drive, between San Nicholas Drive and San Miguel Drive, in the Block 400 Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Robert W. Forstrom, Balboa OWNER: Eugene Rhodes, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. *Yes Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3329 to the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. 22- COMMISSIONERS �A %, G F so $yyvy'�'x. October 20, 1988 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1124 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.9 Request to allow alterations to an existing attached V1124 .garage which currently exceeds the top of curb height on Ocean Boulevard and the maximum permitted height above Approved natural grade. The proposed alterations involve a redesign of the garage roof which proposes to continue the nonconforming height of the garage. LOCATION: Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Tract No. 1257, located at 3317 Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard, between Marguerite Avenue and Marigold Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Lisa Benedict, Corona del Mar • OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that a letter was received from John Anderson, 214 Goldenrod Avenue, opposing the subject variance. Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner Debay stated that inasmuch as they were not present at the October 6, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, they had reviewed the Planning Commission minutes so as to allow them to participate in the subject proceedings. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeannette stated that he and the applicant met with the residents in the adjacent area so as to present an analysis of the proposed pitch of the roof. In reference to a drawing on display, Mr. Jeannette explained the existing roof pitch, the previously proposed roof pitch, and the ridge height if it would be lowered an additional six inches. Mr. Jeannette stated that an effort has been made to work with the residents so as to lessen the view impact. Mr. Jeannette stated that the chimney will be no greater than what is required by the Uniform Building Code which would be two feet of height from any portion of the structure ten feet away, and that an attempt is being made to move the chimney as far forward to the front of the garage as possible. Mr. Jeannette further stated 23- COMMISSIONERS ymar^yo99�y�yy�9s October 20, 1988 yyyo< y << os o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX that the side yard encroachment for the proposed fireplace and chimney will be no more than one foot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay in reference to a statement made by Mr. Jeannette during the October 6, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, that the garage could not be lowered because of the master bedroom, Mr. Jeannette explained that the floor of the garage could not be lowered because it would encroach into the floor space of the master bedroom and bathroom underneath said garage. Mr. Marvin Neben, 3312 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition to the variance. Mr. Neben stated that the non - conforming garage is a view obstruction for the public and it does not blend in with the adjoining properties on Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Neben stated that he had attended the foregoing meeting, and that he requested that the roof be reduced farther than the proposed six inches. In reference to the chimney, he stated that it is a further • obstruction and a continuance of a non- conforming use. He said that if the chimney cannot be restricted so that it does not exceed a height of two feet above the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard, then it should not be permitted. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Neben's replied that he has seen the proposed plans, and in his opinion the. remodel should be considered a new dwelling. Commissioner Pers6n advised that the applicant could rebuild the roof on the existing garage, leave the chimney exactly the same height and configuration that currently exists, and the applicant would also be permitted to construct an additional chimney. Mr. Lars de Jounge, 208 Marigold Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to also speak on behalf of several of the residents in the area. Mr. de Jounge stated that the non - conforming structures should conform with all of the residences on Ocean Boulevard. He opposed the modification that had been approved by the Modifications Committee on August 16, 1988, permitting an encroachment 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. 24 COMMISSIONERS A �n Oi Otn yBG L 9N 9y y v October 20, 1988 � 9 oy \<" o yo y � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Jeannette reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn. Mr. Jeannette stated that the view has been increased by approximately eighty percent when considering the square footage that is being reduced by lowering the roof by six inches, and the addition of one chimney. Commissioner Winburn commented that the applicants could reroof the existing garage requiring only a Building Permit and a chimney permitted in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, resulting in no increase in view. Mr. Jeannette and Chairman Pomeroy discussed the pitch of the existing roof and what is proposed, and they also discussed if a gambrel roof could be considered so as to reduce the roof an additional six inches to twelve inches. Commissioner Di Sano stated that if the application would not be approved, the applicant would have the opportunity to reroof the garage and the size of the existing structure would remain the same. He explained ffion that to approve the application enhances the public * welfare. Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1124 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Chairman Pomeroy requested that Condition No. 8 be added stating that the garage roof shall be lowered by an additional six inches. The maker of the motion consented to the recommendation. Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1124 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including Ayes * * * * Condition No. 8 .stating "That the garage shall be Noes * * reduced an additional six inches." MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstan- ces and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as there are very few existing homes on Ocean Boulevard that have garages on the upper street level that also have livable space directly below • the garage. 2. That the granting of a variance to exceed the permitted height is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the 25 COMMISSIONERS y�GF��s y ��� y v mvy October 20, 1988 9y o� t�Po�,yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX applicant, inasmuch as the structure currently maintains a greater nonconformity and to relocate the garage to a lower level would require the demolition of the master bedroom and bath and would require a steeper driveway grade. 3. That the proposed project will result in less view impairment than presently exists on the site. 4. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such. proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 5. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal • Program, Land Use Plan. 6. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That landscaping shall be revised to provide adequate sight distance in compliance with City Standard 110 -L. 3. That a City Council approved encroachment permit shall be obtained for all work in the public right of way. 4. That the tops of the chimneys, including decorative chimney caps shall maintain only that height necessary to comply with the Uniform Building Code in those cases where the chimneys exceed the height limits established by the Zoning Code. 5. That the proposed fireplace and chimney shall not encroach more than 12 inches into the required 4 foot westerly side yard setback. -26- COMMISSIONERS q q'f. a� F9 �� N m. GAF, ,po y�ywwx October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That Coastal Commission Approval shall be obtained. 7. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090 A of the Municipal Code. 8. That the garage roof shall be lowered an additional six inches. ,t Site Plan Review No. 47 (Continued Discussion) Item No.10 Request to approve a Site Plan Review.in accordance with SPR 47 Condition No. 32 of the previously approved Tract No. 12873, so as to allow the construction of a single Approved family dwelling on Lot 5 of said subdivision. LOCATION: Lot 5, Tract No. 12873, located at 5 Park Place, at the southerly terminus of Park • Place, adjacent to the Theatre Arts Center, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Steven Jacobson, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, submitted photographs to the Planning Commission showing the poles and flags that were placed on the site in accordance with the Planning Commission's request at the October 6, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. He referred to a letter that was submitted by the Newport Heights Community Association dated October 18, 1988. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the Coastal Commission informed staff that the subject project would not have to come back before the Coastal Commission because they had reviewed the project in conjunction with the Tentative Tract Map application. In reference to the Newport Heights Community Association's letter, Commissioner Debay requested a clarification of their statement "please address our concern that the southerly property will be preserved as open space." -27- COMMISSIONERS ym 9 9 y y October 20, 1988 6� 9 o0 s ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The discussion period was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeannette addressed the foregoing photographs that were shown to the Planning Commission. Ms. Jeanine Gault, 406 San Bernardino Avenue, Vice President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Gault referred to Commissioner Debay's foregoing statement, and she explained that said statement was in response to Finding No. 5 which states "that the southerly portion of the subject property will be preserved as open space." Mr. Steve Jacobson, 810 Kings Road, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacobson referred to his letter to the Planning Commission dated October 11, 1988, wherein he described the amount of research that he did when he purchased the subject property. He stated that he would not have purchased the property if • there had not been conditions already imposed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He further stated that he is aware of the concerns regarding the construction of structures that are adjacent to a park, and that he has attempted to meet the required conditions. Mr. Jacobson stated that the plan is in compliance with said conditions, and he requested that the application be approved or the project could become a financial burden to him. In response to questions posed by Commissioner PersGn, Mr. Jacobson replied that the height restrictions, setbacks, and view corridors are in compliance with the requirements that were proposed to him when he purchased the property. Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, wherein he referred to his letter dated October 19, 1988. Dr. Vandersloot stated that a substantial part of the view will be lost as demonstrated by the stakes and flags at the lower right hand corner of Ensign View Park, and he presented photographs to substantiate his statement. In reference to the entire development, Dr. Vandersloot pointed out the views that would be lost from Ensign View Park. • In reference to the statement in the staff report which states that the proposed residence is a permitted use within the General Plan's designation of "Low Density -28- COMMISSIONERS ymoc� 9s 99 y y October 20, 1988 9yooy�ysyo y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Residential ", Dr. Vandersloot explained that the subject development is inconsistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Pers6n referred to the November 6, 1986, Planning Commission minutes wherein Ms. Karen Harrington speaking on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association, stated "..that the view loss is insignificant.. ". Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission addressed the matter of views at length when the proposal was brought before the Planning Commission and it was the position of the Newport Heights Community Association that the view loss towards Hoag Hospital which would be to the west of the development, was not a view that they were concerned about. Commissioner Pers6n stated . that the Planning Commission has been criticized for not protecting views from public areas, and it was for that purpose the Planning Commission requested that the project be brought back so as to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to determine the view impact from public areas. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Planning • Commission has done everything possible to minimize the view impact inasmuch as they had imposed a condition that would have given them the opportunity to review the project, and that said condition was subsequently deleted by the City Council except for the development on Lot 5. Commissioner Pers6n concluded that the developers have accomplished what they said that they would do, and the problems concerning views was brought to the attention of the Newport Heights Community Association by the Planning Commission. Dr. Vandersloot referred to Ms. Marian Rayl's comments during the foregoing Planning Commission meeting stating "..that the Newport Heights Community Association does not consider any view loss insignificant and that they concur with Commissioner Pers6n's aforementioned statement concerning the accumulative affect of minor view losses." Dr. Vandersloot concluded that problems exist when a low density development has been approved at four units per acre and is inconsistent with the General Plan designation. Commissioner Pers6n and Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the basic fundamental issues concerning the General Plan are not before the Planning Commission, and that the statute of limitations for challenging the action has expired. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the discussion period was closed at this time. -29- COMMISSIONERS A A 7i• O�, O� ymc�d`yc^y m m October 20, 1988 9y9ox CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pers6n referred to the October 6, 1988, Planning Commission meeting when he requested that the subject item be continued, and he stated that based upon the evidence that was presented to the Planning Commission and visiting the site, motion was made to Motion * approve Site Plan Review No. 47 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She explained that she was concerned about the views from the Theatre Arts Center; however, she said that she does not have said concerns any longer. Commissioner Winburn commented that less than two percent of the view from the park was going to be restricted by the development. She pointed out that the views to Hoag Hospital and a portion of the ocean behind the bridge have been obstructed, but not the view of the bay. Commissioner Winburn stated that the views have been acceptable to the residents in the area, and they would be acceptable to the individual in the park who is sitting on the park bench. Commissioner Pers6n reflected that if the project were presented to the Planning Commission now, that he would not have supported said development. Motion was voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. 47 * * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Ayes * MOTION CARRIED. No Findings 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate off - street parking will be provided. 3. The proposed development is a high - quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 5. That the southerly portion of the subject property will be preserved as open space. -30- COMMISSIONERS October 20, 1988 op 90 oy Q �o�yo y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. .7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code, 8. That the proposed residence will be developed in conformance with Conditions of Approval of Tract No. 12873. 9. That the approval of Site Plan Review No. 47 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. • CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all conditions of approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873, as approved by the Planning Commission on November 6, 1986, and modified by the City Council on December 8, 1986 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the design of the driveway grades be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works and Building Departments. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That the drive apron onto Park Place shall have a minimum 0.7 foot rise from street flow line to back of drive apron. 6. That the driveway adjacent to the garage be widened to a minimum width of 24 feet or that a hammerhead type turnaround be provided at the easterly property boundary. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. -31- COMMISSIONERS Zm0+L�9�9 y 9 October 20, 1988 GZ�Z �O 9i 9 Z yo�oso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That there be no structural encroachments within the easement for pedestrian ingress and egress purposes irrevocably offered to the City which is located along the southerly lot boundary. 8. That the landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. The allowable height of trees, other landscaping or hardscape on the lower portion on the subject property shall be restricted to an elevation so as not to interfere with bay or ocean views. 9. This site plan review shall expire within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Site Plan Review No. 48 (Discussion) Item No.11 Request to approve a Site Plan Review in accordance with SPR N0.48 Condition of Approval No. 13 of the previously approved Resubdivision No. 862, so as to permit the construction Approved of four single family dwellings on the subject property. LOCATION: Portions of Lot D, Tract No. 919, located at 2919 Cliff Drive, on the southerly side of .Cliff Drive, between Santa Ana Avenue and Riverside Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONES: R -1 and R -3 APPLICANT: Mariners Point Partnership, Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has provided two plans for Parcel No. 4, one plan if the building height is to be measured from a pad elevation as approved by the Planning Commission, and the second plan if the building height is to be measured from natural grade. • Mr. Hewicker referred to Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot's letter dated October 19, 1988, addressed to the Planning Commission. 32 COMMISSIONERS October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to concerns expressed by Dr. Vandersloot in his letter regarding archeological evaluations of the subject site, Mr. Hewicker explained that unless information is presented to the City with respect to specific knowledge of some Indian relics or .archaeological resources that are located on the property which would have a specific bearing on the location of one of the dwellings on the lots, the statute of limitations has passed and there is nothing that can be done regarding the approval of the subdivision. He further explained that archeological studies are normally attached to the approval of a parcel map. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, recommended that the following Condition No. 8 be added to Exhibit "A ": "That the tops of the chimneys, including decorative chimney caps, shall maintain only that height necessary to comply with the Uniform Building Code in those cases where the chimneys exceed the height limits established by the Zoning Code." Mr. Laycock stated • that after reviewing the elevations of Parcels No. 1 and 2, it appears that the chimneys exceed the heights required by the Zoning Code and the Uniform Building Code. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the joint driveways of Parcels No. 2, 3, and 4, and the elimination of some of the open space of Parcel No. 3, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that one plan to be considered consisted of a joint driveway for three of the parcels and the second plan indicated that a driveway could be combined with Parcels No. 1 and 2. Mr. Webb explained that the memorandum that had previously been submitted to the Planning Commission from the Public Works Department pointed out that there was a condition that stated that the driveways should be minimized to try to make it appear as much of a public area as possible and to tie the two parks together that are adjacent to the development, He said that the purpose of the memorandum was to assist the Planning Commission in determining if the condition had been met. In reference to the meandering sidewalk that was shown on the site plan so as to comply with Condition No. 10, Mr. Webb stated that the conceptual landscape plan shows a meandering sidewalk S feet instead of 6 feet, and he suggested that the Planning Commission request a 6 foot wide meandering sidewalk. 33- COMMISSIONERS ymG ��9s,�9y y y October 20, 1988 9 yo °y Q 9o�yo y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the stairs leading down into the adjoining parks from the sidewalk, Mr. Webb explained that the sidewalk would be extended on either side of the development to join into the existing stairs and walkway system, and that no new stairs need to be constructed. The discussion period opened at this time, and Mr. Hal Woods, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Woods stated that the four partners in the project intend to reside in the development, and that they concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Woods stated that he would agree to an archeologist on site, if necessary; however, he said that several residents who have resided in the area for up to fifty years have stated that they had never heard of a cave that was covered over in the 1950'x. Mr. Woods supported the Alternate Plan "A" on Parcel No. 4 as illustrated in the site plan inasmuch as it creates more open space. Mr. Woods explained that a two story . structure will be visible from Riverside Avenue instead of the actual two and one -half story structure since there will be a berm on the site. In reference to Dr. Vandersloot's aforementioned letter, Mr. Woods responded that the $5,000.00 tree location was completed approximately two weeks ago. He replied further that the applicants have been watering the trees; however, because of a shortage of water they have not been watering the lawn. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Woods explained the differences between Alternates "A" and "B" from the conceptual plan indicating that Alternate "A" represents a better design for Parcel No. 4 inasmuch as it resulted in less lot coverage and increased landscaping, and still conformed to the maximum 29 foot height limitation measured from natural grade. Mr. Hewicker explained that Alternate "A" results in less of an impact on Riverside Avenue from the building on Parcel No. 4. He stated that it is not going to change the height of the building; however, Alternate "B" pushes the lower part of the structure out closer to the street. Dr. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to the aforementioned letter. Dr. Vandersloot suggested a requirement that would state that an archeologist be on -34- COMMISSIONERS ydG�r Fy�F�9 y y mvx October 20, 1988 9 9° y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX site during grading for evidence of Indian activity inasmuch as an Indian tar mine and an ancient Indian coastal city have been known to be in the area. He addressed his concerns regarding the need to save the trees that are located on the site. Dr. Vandersloot indicated that there is an inconsistency in the General Plan inasmuch as Site Plan Review No. 47, located at 5 Park Place adjacent to Ensign View Park, has been classified as "Low Density Residential" and the subject Site Plan Review is considered "Medium Density Residential ". Ms. Korade stated that the analysis of consistency with the General Plan and the adequacy of the Environmental Document have passed the statute of limitations, and the time period to challenge the consistency has expired. Discussion ensued between Dr. Vandersloot and Commissioner Winburn regarding his suggestion that stakes and ribbons be put on the site to enable the public to visualize the size and scope of the • development. Commissioner Winburn explained that the development is located on a wooded site. Dr. Vandersloot suggested that stakes and flags could be put on Parcel No. 4 inasmuch as it is not densely wooded and it is the site that will have the most impact. Ms. Jeanine Gault, 406 San Bernardino Avenue, Vice President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission to state the residents' concerns regarding the preservation of the trees. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the discussion period was closed. Commissioner Di Sano explained that stakes and flags would not be helpful inasmuch as the site is wooded, and he indicted that if an archeological discovery were made on the site, the crew could stop work so as to call in Motion + an expert. Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 48 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the addition of the foregoing Condition No. 8 as suggested by staff. Commissioner Debay stated that she would support the • motion on the basis that the development standards have been met. -35- COMMISSIONERS f� �9�y�vy vX October 20, 1988 z `y ``��� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pers6n stated that the recently approved General Plan addressed the subject site, and he pointed out that the City Council unanimously approved the subject development for this site. Commissioner Pers6n had doubts if he would have supported the subject project if it were before the Planning Commission today. He said that he would support the motion to approve the Site Plan Review inasmuch as it meets the criteria as indicated by the original conditions of approval. In reference to staking the subject site, Commissioner Pers6n stated that the area is different than the Park Place site inasmuch as a good portion of what the neighbors are trying to protect in terms of view are the trees. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would support the motion, and he supported the environmental concerns that were expressed by concerned individuals during the discussion period. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would support the motion. He explained that there is a definite difference between the development on Park Place, Site Plan Review No. 47, and the subject project. He stated that Park Place included a scheme of a subdivision; however, the applicant presented drawings of the subject subdivision to the Planning Commission that facilitated them in knowing exactly what was going to be developed. Chairman Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion. He suggested to the applicant that an archeologist visit the site during the times that major grading is proposed. Motion was voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. 48 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", All Ayes including Condition No. 8. MOTION CARRIED. Findings 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. . 2. That adequate off - street parking will be provided. 3. The proposed development is a high - quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of 36- COMMISSIONERS 3m49�����9(`yyQd October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 5. That the 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 a developer per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the proposed single family homes will be developed in conformance with Conditions of Approval of Resubdivision No. 862. 8. That the proposed changes to the conceptual grading plan are minor in nature and will not affect the original intended purpose of the pad elevations represented in the previously submitted grading plan. 9. That the approval of Site Plan Review No. 48 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved landscape plan grading /site plan, floor plans, elevations and sections except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all conditions of approval of the Resubdivision No. 862, as approved by the City Council on May 9, 1988, shall be fulfilled. 3. That the design of the driveway grades be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works and Building Departments. -37- COMMISSIONERS ymG �yd,�y� y v�mvr October 20, 1988 9y ��y f�yo,,yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That the drive aprons onto Cliff Drive shall have a minimum 0.7 foot rise from street flow line to back of drive apron. 6. That the landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. The allowable height of trees, other landscaping or hardscape on the lower portion on the subject property shall be restricted to an elevation so as not to interfere with bay or ocean views. 7. That the development of Parcel 4 shall be in substantial conformance with the floor plans, elevations and sections represented as Alternative "A" in the approved plans. 8. That the tops of the chimneys, including decorative chimney caps, shall maintain only that height necessary to comply with the Uniform Building Code in those cases where the chimneys exceed the height limits established by the Zoning Code. Review of "Universal" Parking Spaces (Discussion) Item No.12 Request to review a draft ordinance to establish Universal standards for a "universal" parking stall for commercial Parking off - street parking. Spaces INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Recommende to CC Chairman Pomeroy referred to Exhibit "A" describing the dimensions of the aisle width measurements, and he acknowledged the reports that were requested by the Planning Commission and that were received from jurisdictions concerning "Universal" parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards concerning the traffic circulation within the parking lot, Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, referred to Exhibit "A ", and explained that angles of parking consist of 30, 45, 60, and 90 degrees, and that all of the aisles, with the exception of 90 degree angle parking, shall be one way travel. He said that if there -38- COMMISSIONERS yOG�`n�9NF�9ly9 9 1 yy? � °y C��esyo October 20, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX would be two -way travel in an angled parking lot design, then the required aisle width would be the same width as is required to accommodate the 90 degree angle stalls. * Motion was made and voted on to recommend the Draft Motion Resolution establishing Universal parking stalls to the All Ayes City Council for its approval. MOTION CARRIED. Request to consider recommending a Policy to the City Item No.13 Council regarding the requirement of vroverty corners for new construction. _(Discussion) Property Corners INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Implemented Commissioner Pers6n stated that he supported the by staff Motion * suggestion as presented by staff. Motion was made and All Ayes voted on to direct staff to implement the administrative policy as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ITEM D -1 Request to consider rescheduling the Regular Planning Reschedule Commission Meeting of November 10, 1988, PCM 11 -9 -88 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion * Motion was made and voted on to reschedule the Regular All Ayes Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 1988, to Wednesday, November 9, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add'l Business Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner All Winburn from the November 9, 1988, Planning Commission Winburn Ayes meeting. MOTION CARRIED. excused ADJOURNMENT: 10 :55 p.m. Adjournment GARY DI SANG, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION _39_