Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/1981COMMISSIONERS Ci REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7 :30 p.m. Date: November 5, 1981 of Newport Beach MINUTES 141W CALL I III Jill I INDEX XI XI 4* IXI Commissioner Balalis was absent EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: .James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Acting City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer - Pamela Woods, Secretary Staff advised that the following items be continued to . the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 19, 1981: Item No. 3 - Amendment No. 567; Item No. 5 - Resubdivision No. 707; and, Item No. 13 - Use Permit - No. 2043. Staff further advised that Item No. 4, Use Permit. No. 2006 (Amended) has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Motion X Motion was made to continue the above listed items to All Ayes X X X X * X November 19, 1981 and to withdraw Use Permit No. 2006 (Amended), which MOTION CARRIED. Request to construct a 20 unit time share condominium I Iten #1 development and related parking area in the C -1 -H I District that exceeds the basic height within the 26135 jI Foot Height Limitation District and the acceptance of USE PERMIT an Environmental Document. NO. 2019 AND AND Request to establish a single building site for a 20 unit residential time share condominium project where Item #2 two lots and a portion of two other lots now exist. RESUB • _1_ LION . N0. 696- ,MISSIONERS C 7 • November 5, 1981 Of t Beach MINUTES LOCATION: Lots 5, 6 and a portion.of Lots 4 and . 7 of Tract No. 1622, located at 3336 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of .Via Lido between Via Oporto and Via Malaga in the Lido Village area. ZONE: - �C -1 -H APPLICANTS: R. V. Hogan Company and Spangler/ Schachtman and Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Robert Glasser, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Planning Director Hewicker discussed background information related to these items. He also referred to the supplemental staff report prepared for these items relating to the revised traffic generation figures. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Dick Hogan, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hogan stated that the proposed use is consistent with the area. He further stated that the proposed use will .meet the requirements of the City and will create less of an impact to the area, than what can be built under the Ordinance, such as office or commercial development. Mr. Hogan stated that the proposed design concept consisting of three floors, will allow for greater setbacks from the street, additional amenities, and a more desirable atmosphere for the project. Mr. Hogan stated that as a result of the last meeting, they have met with the Lido Isle Homeowner's Association. He stated that the main concerns expressed were that of the condominium owners spending a considerable amount of time visiting the beaches on Lido Isle,.and the traffic generated by this project. -2- INDEX Both Continued to December 10, 1981 C November 5, 1981 Of t Beach MINUTES S RWLCALLI III Jill IINDEX Mr. Hogan stated that nearly all of the proposed units will have a balcony with a bay view. He stated that all of the units have access to the waterfront, along with a pool and patio for their recreation. He stated that the condominium owners would utilize the ocean beaches which are broader and more exciting than the Lido Isle beaches. He also stated that the proposed project will generate less traffic, than any other kind of project which could be developed at this location. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hogan stated that there are several design options which can be considered in reducing the height and the size of the units. Mr. Hogan stated that they are willing to work with the Planning Commission in this endeavor. Chairman McLaughlin asked Mr. Hogan if he would be agreeable to a continuance on these items. Mr. Hogan stated that they would be agreeable to a continuance of two weeks in order to design an acceptable project. • Ms. Marion Pickens, President of the Lido Isle Community Association, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the proposed time sharing condominium. She stated that the property should remain zoned for a low profile office building. She stated that the time share concept is a complicated and untried procedure in the City of Newport Beach. Ms. Pickens stated that she would be submitting additional petitions of opposition from the residents of Lido Isle. Commissioner Beek stated that according to the revised traffic generation figures, the proposed condominium plan would only generate half as much traffic, as what could be developed without the City's approval. Ms. Pickens stated that the condominiums as proposed, do not provide enough parking. She stated that the.guests of the condominium owners will probably be parking on Lido Isle streets. Mr. John Dryden, resident of 3326 Via Lido, stated that a retail /service commercial use will only generate traffic between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. during the week, whereas a time share condominium use will generate traffic 24 hours a day during the week and the • weekends. He expressed his concern that the Via Lido -3- November 5, 1981 1 City of Newao Beach MINUTES (WL CALL I 1 1 1 III I -INDEX I � U • commercial parking area is not adequate at the present time. Mr. Ted Kressel, resident of 129 Via Yella, stated that many of the condominium owners will prefer to walk to the beaches on Lido isle, rather than drive to the ocean beach. He stated that most of the residents of Lido Isle object to the use and the height of the proposed project. Mr. Bill Shaver, resident of 127 Via Nice, stated that he objects to the proposed project because of the increased impact to the traffic, noise, parking, height and appearance. He added that he is not aware of. a property owner or a resident of the area which is in favor of the proposed project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that office and retail /commercial uses would be permitted as outright uses of the property, whereas residential uses, motels, hotels or restaurants at this location would require a use permit. Mr. Hogan stated that the present Local Coastal Plan does not allow for residential uses at this location. He stated that the Coastal Commission has the last say in approving any project located on the water. He stated that an office use can not be approved in this location without other coastally required amenities, which is not feasible. He stated that the applicant must be allowed to develop a use which is economically feasible within the development of the property. Chairman McLaughlin suggested the following: that 4,000 square feet,be eliminated from the total project; the height be reduced to meet the City's 26 foot height limit; reduce the number of units to 18, which would include a unit for a full time on -site manager (17 time share units); and, redesign the units so that they contain no more than one bedroom. Commissioner Thomas asked what the incentive uses would be for an office building at this location. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the existing boat slips would be considered as the incentive use. He stated i flk IG November 5, 1981 Of t Beach MINUTES f!L CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX that the existing boat slips are also considered the incentive use which would allow for the proposed time share condominiums. Ms. Milbeth Brey, representing the ownership of the Lido Building located directly across the street from the proposed project, referred to her letter of protest dated October 26, 1981. Ms. Brey expressed concerns relating to the height of the project, the additional parking demand, the increase in traffic circulation, and the noise pollution which will be generated by the proposed project. She stated that she would be willing to meet with the applicant and discuss the possibilities of a compromised project which would be a credit to the neighborhood. Commissioner Allen stated that she would be in favor of a good redevelopment plan for this property, but she expressed her concerns with the time share concept. She stated that the proposed condominium owners would only be owning the right to occupy a unit. She stated that a large population of tourists currently visit the • Peninsula and that in this particular area, an office -type use may be more of a benefit. She stated that an office use is utilized between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, during the week, whereas tourists are on the road at all times. She stated that the Coastal Commission may consider the mixed use concept, in that the marina use could be an incentive use credited toward the property. She stated that she is not in favor of the proposed height of the building, particularly if it will block views from other properties in the area. Commissioner Winburn stated that she is aware of Lido Isle Community Associations's concerns with this project and asked staff to discuss the responses, received from other homeowner's associations in the City. Planning Director Hewicker stated that approximately 70 associations were notified of the proposed time share condominiums. He stated that only three responses have been received, two of which were not favorable. Commissioner Beek stated that in many cases, the homeowner's associations have not had the opportunity to meet and discuss this time share concept, as many of • their meetings are only held once a month. -5- November 5, 1981 IF W City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Beek suggested that a committee be ,I appointed to further study this proposal and to suggest alternatives to the project. Commissioner Thomas stated that the responses received from the homeowner's associations should be evaluated in terms of who will be impacted the most. He stated that the concerns expressed by the residents of the area are valid and must be considered. He stated that a time share use at this particular location, may not be the right use of the property. Motion X Motion was -made for a continuance of these items to - December 10, 1981, for the applicant to consider the direction of the Commission. Mr. Hogan asked if it would be possible to receive an advisory vote from the Commission on the time share concept. He added that they are most willing to work within the perimeters which have been setforth by the Commission. • Commissioner Beek stated that in taking a straw vote on the time share concept, he may be opposed to the time share concept on this particular site, but not opposed to the time share concept in general. Chairman McLaughlin stated that in supporting the motion for the continuance, the Commissioners are also stating that they are not opposed to the entire concept for time shares. Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commissioners are opposed to the time share concept, then they should vote no on the continuance. Motion X Substitute motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. Ayes X X X 2019, subject to the findings as distributed, which Noes X X X SUBSTITUTE ,MOTION FAILED. (Mr. Glasser, the owner, Absent * waived the reading of the findings for denial). Commissioner Allen stated she can support a motion to continue these items. She stated that she would be in favor of a project on the site which would be within the height limits. She stated that this particular site is not appropriate for a time share development. She suggested that the applicant consider alternate land uses for this property. i g 3 November 5,, 1981 MINUTES of Newport Beach RWLCALLI 1 1 I III I (INDEX Motion X Ayes X X X X X Motion was made for a continuance of Use Permit No. Noes X 2019 to December 10, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent Chairman McLaughlin asked Mr. Glasser, the owner, if he would be agreeable to a continuance of the resubdivision request. Mr. Glasser stated that this would be acceptable. Motion X Motion was made for a continuance of Resubdivision No. All Ayes X X.X X * X 696 to December 10, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to establish -a Mobile Home Park District. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Staff advised that this item be continued to the meeting of November 19, 1981. ion X All Ayes X X X X X * )( Motion was made to continue this item, Amendment No. 567, to the meeting of November 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to amend a previously approved use permit, establishing a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in the C -1 District, so as to change the hours of operation to include the service of food, beer and wine during lunch hours. LOCATION: Lot 53, Block B, Tract -No. 673, located at 3840 East Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Hazel Drive and Seaward Road in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Mitsuo Ueno, Costa Mesa OWNER: Duca McCoy, Corona del Mar • 11111111 -7 Item #3 AMENDMENT NO. 567 Continued to November 19, 1981 Item #4 USE PERMIT N0. 2006 ;Amended) WITHDRAWN BY.THE APPLICANT Motion Al1.Ayes • Motion All Ayes • x � m 9 tO in' MIX XIXI *IX November 5, 1981 City of New[ t Beach MINUTES INDEX Staff advised that the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn from the calendar. Motion was made to withdraw this item, Use Permit No. 2006 (Amended), which MOTION CARRIED. Staff advised that this item be continued to the meeting of November 19, 1981, in order to readvertise in the public notice that this application will also require an exception to the Subdivision Code in conjunction with the required lot depth on one of the proposed parcels. Motion was made to continue this item, Resubdivision No. 707, to the meeting of November 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. -$ 1 Request to create . four parcels of land for single Item #5 family residential purposes where one parcel presently exists, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. RESUB- LOCATION: A portion of Lot 2, Newport Heights - DIVISION located at 2961 Cliff Drive, N0. 707 constituting the entire easterly side of " Santa Ana Avenue, between Cliff Drive and an unimproved portion of Avon Street in Newport Heights. Continued ZONE: R -1 to November 19, 1981 APPLICANT: Jeffery A. Hartman Enterprises,- - Newport Beach OWNER: - Helen F. Kreutzkamp, Newport Beach Staff advised that this item be continued to the meeting of November 19, 1981, in order to readvertise in the public notice that this application will also require an exception to the Subdivision Code in conjunction with the required lot depth on one of the proposed parcels. Motion was made to continue this item, Resubdivision No. 707, to the meeting of November 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. -$ 1 1 ti 3 9 03 f15 C November 5, 1981 M Beach MINUTES R I P F L CALL I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX • Request to permit the construction of an office condominium development that exceeds 5,000 square feet' of floor area.in a Specific Plan Area, where a Specific Plan has not been adopted, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. - AND Request to establish a single parcel of land for office condominium purposes where two parcels and a portion of an abandoned street presently exist: LOCATION: Lots 6 and 7, Block 9, Tract No. 27 and a portion of an abandoned street located at 469 and 471 North Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of North Newport Boulevard, between Bolsa Avenue and Westminster Avenue, in the Old Newport Boulevard area. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: .Newport Harbor Enterprises, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Craig Hampton, the architect, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of these items. Planning Director Hewicker discussed background information related to these items and described the floor area ratios of other projects in the surrounding area which ranged from .47 X Buildable Area, .51 X Buildable Area, .57 X Buildable Area, .84 X Buildable Area and, 1.07 X Buildable Area. Ms. Pat Strang, representing Newport Heights Community Association, stated that they would like to see a Specific Plan Area adopted for this area. She stated that .5 X the Buildable Area is consistent with the area. Item #6, USE PERMIT NO. 2038 AND Item #7 RESUB- DIVISION NO. 709 BOTH APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY CUMMISSIUNLKS November 5, 1981 MINUTES Cr s City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX Mr. Sidney Soffer, owner of property on Industrial Way, stated that there is a variety of mixed uses in this area. He stated that gradually these parcels are being redeveloped, which is an improvement to the area. In response to a question posed by Mr. Soffer, Commissioner Allen stated that part of the problem with medical offices in this area is the daytime traffic . which travels through the Newport Heights neighborhood. She stated that lower intensity uses, with less in and out traffic, would be more appropriate for this area. Mr. Soffer stated that the redevelopment of this area has access from Newport Boulevard through to Old Newport Boulevard and therefore, would not create a traffic impact on the Newport Heights neighborhood. Mr. Roger Schwenk, owner of property on Industrial Way, I stated that this proposal would be an asset to the street and an asset to the area. I I I I I I Mr. Wayne Sidell, resident of the property in question, I • stated that his current low rent housing is now being converted to condominiums. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker explained the surrounding land uses and the projects which are currently under construction in the area. Commissioner Allen stated that .5 X Buildable Area is consistent with the area. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the project approved at 1.07 X Buildable Area is large because it is a combination commercial and residential use. Commissioner Beek stated that .5 X Buildable Area is a good standard. He stated that in order to retain flexibility and encourage attractive buildings, he would be in favor of a .55 X Buildable Area for this project. Motion X Motion was made to approve this project subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with a .55 X Buildable Area. Mr. Hampton stated that a Specific Area Plan has not been adopted for the development in this area.. Therefore, he stated that the .5 X Buildable Area is • not an adopted standard for this area. He stated that _10_ COMMISSIONERS MINUTES' November 5, 1981 LN City of Newport Beach L CALL IIH INDEX the density as they are proposing, allows for a lot of open space. Commissioner Winburn asked Mr. Hampton how much square footage the project will be losing if it is approved at .55 X Buildable Area, rather than the requested .74 X Buildable Area. Mr. Hampton stated that they would be losing approximately 3,000 square feet. He requested that the maximum allowable square footage be approved for this project. Amendment X Amendment was made that approval for the project be at .6 X Buildable Area. Commissioner Beek requested that this be voted on first, as an amendment to the motion only. Ayes X Y X X Amendment to the motion for .6 X Buildable Area was now Noes X X voted on, which AMENDMENT CARRIED. Absent A11 A es X X X X X Commissioner Beek's amended motion for approval of Use y Permit No. 2038 at .6 X Buildable Area, subject to the • following findings and conditions, was now voted on, which AMENDED 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 any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. The proposed office building is in keeping with the desired character of the specific plan area as identified by the General Plan. 5. The proposed use will not preclude the attainment of the Specific Area Plan objective stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. -11- C� C0MMI551CUNEKS MINUTES November 5, 1981 iz 7c m D H S City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 2038 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: - - - - 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjacent properties and streets. 3. That a lighting plan shall be designed in such a manner that eliminates any glare and ambient light to adjacent public roadways or commercial areas. • 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 709 shall be fulfilled. 5. Landform alteration on the site should be subject to the approval of a grading permit. The grading permit should be prepared by a Civic Engineer based upon recommendation of an engineering geologist. The grading permit should include: a.) An investigation of surface and subsurface drainage. b.) A complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities. c.) A erosion and dust control plan. d.) An erosion and siltation control plan approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. e.) A comprehensive soil and geologic investigation. f.) A surface drainage plan that will not create downstream erosion. g.) Erosion control measures on all exposed slopes. • 11111111 -12 • • ,MISSIONERS D CI November 5, 1981 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX 6. All proposed development should provide for vacuum sweeping of parking areas. 7. The project should provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for all water -using facilities. 8. The project should provide for the sorting of recyclable materials from other solid wastes. 9. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, paragraph 6; Division T -20, Chapter 2, sub- chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 10. The project should investigate the use of alternative energy sources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. 11. The proposed project shall be developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. 12. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and should be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; _13_ - -- * 1 c j to y November 5, 1981 z t Beach MINUTES R W L CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX c.) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial' area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 13. That should any resources be uncovered during construction on the site, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 15. The parking layout and aisles and ramp grades, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 16. That development shall not exceed .6.X the Buildable Area on the property. Oon X Commissioner Beek's motion � for approval of A11 Ayes X X X X * X Resubdivision No. 709, was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. 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. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Public • Works Department. -14- COMMISSIONERS c y November 5, 1981 z t Beach MINUTES FWL CALL I III III I I INDEX 4. That the public improvements (curb, gutter, full width sidewalk and paveout) be constructed along north Newport Boulevard. That the improvement plans be prepared by a licensed engineer and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 5. That a standard accompanying surety satisfactory completi, if it is desired to record a parcel map public improvements. subdivision agreement and be provided to guarantee >n of the public improvements, obtain a building permit or prior to completion of the 6. That the sanitary sewer lateral be constructed per Costa Mesa Sanitary District Standards. I - • � a 1111111 The Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and • reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Request to permit the construction of a two -unit residential condominium development and related garage spaces in the R -4 District. The proposal also requests the approval of two - architectural spires that exceed the permitted height limit. AND Request to create one parcel of land for residential condominium development where one lot presently exists. LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 17, Section B, Newport Beach Tract, located at 1716 West Ocean Front, on the northerly side of West Ocean Front, between 17th Street and 18th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -4 r1 lJ -15- Item #8 USE PERMIT NO. 2039 AND Item #9: RESUB,- D —IV —Ts ION NO. 710 Both Continued to November 19, 1981 AMISSIUNERS November s, 1981 MINUTES 3n If w City of Newport Beach RWL CALL I III Jill I INDEX motion Motion • APPLICANT: Laguna Pacific, Lake Forest OWNER: Same as applicant Agenda Item Nos. B and 9 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Planning Director Hewicker described the intensity of residential structures in the surrounding area which ranged from 2 X Buildable Area, 1.6 X Buildable Area, and 1.5 X Buildable Area. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Sam Rowe, President of Laguna Pacific, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Rowe referred to Page 3 of the staff report, first paragraph, and stated that for clarification, the spires should maintain a height of 34 feet i above finished grade, rather than natural grade. He stated that he concurred with the recommendation of the staff report and requested approval of these items. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2039 subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Beek stated that he would not be supporting the motion because this is a condominium project on a substandard lot. He stated that if a lot is not big enough to be legally subdivided for one owner, it is certainly not big enough to be subdivided for two. Also, he stated that the proposed buildings are much larger than the conventional Newport Beach houses because it is in an R -4 zone. He stated that R -3 and R -4 zoning on the Peninsula is inappropriate and suggested that the Commission initiate action to rezone such properties to R -2. Commissioner Allen stated that she would not be supporting the motion. She stated that the adjacent properties contain enormous buildings. She stated that perhaps the Commission should rethink the zoning on the Peninsula. She stated that she is objecting to the size of the buildings as proposed. Substitute motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. 2039, in that the project is too large and movement should be made to scale down the projects in the area. -16- MMI551UNW5 MINUTES November 5, 1981 c �D 1 = 2 N City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Bob Burnham, Acting City Attorney, suggested that the Commission continue these items to November 19, 1981, in order for the staff to prepare the appropriate Amendment findings for denial. Commissioner King stated that he would amend his motion to reflect this. Mr. Rowe stated that the property is currently zoned R -4 and that they have complied with all the requirements of the zone. Mr. Rowe requested that the Commission approve these items. Commissioner King suggested that if the project were to provide more open space, this would result in a scale down of the building, which would be more appealing to the Commission members. Mr. Rowe stated that the staff report has conditioned that an additional 269 cu. ft. of open space be provided, which is acceptable. Mr. Tom Spears, joint venture partner with the applicant, stated that they did not purchase this • property anticipating that it would be rezoned by the Commission. He stated that they purchased the R -4 zoned property in order to construct a condominium project. He stated that they have met the requirements as set forth in the staff report. Chairman McLaughlin expressed her concern with the proposed height of the towers. Mr. Spears stated that immediately to the north of the proposed project, there is a three story building and numerous two story buildings in the immediate area. He stated that they would like the opportunity to enjoy the view of the beach, without creating a tunnel effect. Commissioner Thomas stated that the proposed use permit is not in conformance with the health, safety and welfare provisions as evidenced by the testimony. He stated that the proposed project would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman McLaughlin asked Mr. Rowe if he would agree to a continuance on these items. Mr. Rowe stated that this would be acceptable. • -17 MAAISSIONERSI MINUTES November 5, 1981 City of Newport Beach RW CALL I III III I 1 INDEX Motion X Commissioner King's motion for a - continuance of Use Ayes K X X X X Permit No. 2039 to November 19, 1981, was now voted on, Noes X OWNER: Show -Chen Lin, Anaheim - which MOTION CARRIED. Absent The public hearing opened in connection with this item Motion X Commissioner King's motion for a continuance of Ayes K Commission and requested approval of this item. X X X Resubdivision No. 710 to November 19, 1981, was now Noes Mr. Bill Laycock, Current Planning Administrator., X voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent discussed the parking requirements for the project. Mr. Mort Dewitt, resident of the area, stated that he Chairman McLaughlin stated that she voted No on the is in favor of the project and requested Commission continuances in that the proposed project meets the Motion X - requirements of the R -4 zone in which it is located. X X X X * X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2040 * * * Request to establish a take -out food operation in conjunction with an existing retail commercial bakery in the C -1 District, and to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: A portion of Record of Survey 97 -17, located at 3417 Newport Boulevard, on the • westerly side of Newport Boulevard, between Finley Avenue and Short Street, across from Via Lido Plaza. ZONE: C -1 Item #10' USE PERMIT N .� 2040 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY APPLICANT: Patisserie Francaise, Inc., Newport - Beach OWNER: Show -Chen Lin, Anaheim - The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Kesawani, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this item. Mr. Bill Laycock, Current Planning Administrator., discussed the parking requirements for the project. Mr. Mort Dewitt, resident of the area, stated that he is in favor of the project and requested Commission approval. Motion X - All Ayes X X X X * X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2040 subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: • -18- Item #10' USE PERMIT N .� 2040 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS November 5, 1981 MINUTES Q �' a w s City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX 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 any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do . not contemplate any problems. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to parking circulation, walls landscaping, and utilities, will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structure has been in existence for many years. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 2040 will not under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the • health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. . CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That all new exterior lighting and signs shall. conform to Chapters 20.06 and 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 4. That a minimum of five (5) parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. I i i 1 1 1 11 -19- COMMISSIONERS November 5, 19s1 MINUTES g 1 City of Newport Beach CALL I I I I I INDEX Request to permit the construction of a two -unit Item #11 residential condominium and related garage spaces in the R -2 District. USE PERMIT.. AND Request to establish a single parcel of land for residential condominium development where one lot presently exists. AND LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 535, Canal Section, Newport Beach Tract, located at 519 35th Street, on the southwesterly corner of Item #1'2 35th Street and Short Street in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 -- RESUB -- -- DIVISION APPLICANT: Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach NO. ]OB - OWNER: Same as applicant • Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Dana Smith, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of these items. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Smith stated that they will consider the inclusion of the American Arbitration Association clause in their Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's). Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2042 Ayes X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes X N MOTION CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. • -20- APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY CUMMIS51UNLK!) MINUTES November 5, 1981 City of Newport Beach L CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working • in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 708 be fulfilled. Motion x Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 708 Ayes X X x X subject to the following findings and conditions, which, Noes x x MOTION CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: - 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of • -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 5, 1981 �> U N S City of Newport Beach LL INDEX the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. - 3. That each dwelling unit be served with individual' water services and sewer laterals to the main unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. I I I I I 4. That a 10 foot radius corner cut-off be dedicated to the public at the corner of Short Street and . 35th Street. 5. That concrete sidewalk be constructed along the .I Short Street frontage and that the unused drive depression be removed and replaced with concrete curb. 6. That the displaced concrete sidewalk be reconstructed on 35th Street and that the existing displaced curb return be reconstructed using a 20 -foot radius. That the driveway be paved to join the existing asphalt alley. 7. That all public improvements be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public works Department. 8. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. • -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 5, 1981 [C:15 1 City of Newport Beach CALL 17= INDEX ** There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission. - - City of Newport Beach • -23- Request to permit the construction of an office Item #13 building in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area that exceeds the basic height limit of 26 ft. in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District and contains a greater - - gross floor area than .5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to USE PERMIT the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car N0: 2043 .spaces, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Lot 42 of Tract No. 1133 and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 74 -22 (Resubdivision No. Continued 450), located at 204 and 206 Riverside to November Avenue, on the easterly side of Riverside 19, 7.981 Avenue, 90 feet norhterly of Avon Street, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Cliff Wilson- • OWNER: Sunwest Development Corporation, . Newport Beach Staff advised that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the meeting of November 19, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue this item, Use Permit No. All Ayes X X X 1 X X * X 2043 to the meeting of November 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. - ** There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission. - - City of Newport Beach • -23-