Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/1986COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ymFy�yGyQo PLACE: City Council Chambers Gyy� No y�f c^y TIME: 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x x x All Commissioners were present. * * x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney • x � Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator W. William Ward, Senior Planner Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of October 23, 1986: Minutes of 10 -23 -86 Motion was made to approve the October 23, 1986, Ay x x x Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION Abstain x x CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 835 (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to resubdivide three existing lots and remove R835 interior property lines so as to create two new parcels of land for single family residential purposes. The Continued proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision to Code so as to establish a corner parcel with less than 11 -20 -86 6,000 square feet in area.' LOCATION: Lots 435, 436 and 437, Tract No. 907, located at 904 -- 908 Zurich Circle, at the northeasterly corner of Via Zurich and Zurich Circle, on Lido Isle. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Bruce Akins /Don Vodra, Newport Beach 0 OWNER: Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Chicago COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 MROLLCALLIJ I Jill I I INDEX • • James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the subject application, and stated that one single family dwelling currently is constructed over all three of the existing lots. In response to correspondence that has been received from Lido Isle residents who are directly affected or have a concern regarding the application and Lido Isle's CC &R's, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City enforces the Zoning and Subdivision laws; however, the City does not enforce private CC &R's which have been placed on the property. He pointed out that without the resubdivision of the property, and if the applicant wanted to tear down the existing dwelling and then build a new dwelling on each of the three lots, the applicant would be permitted to do so under the City's Zoning and Subdivision regulations. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bruce Akins, applicant, appeared before the .Planning Commission. Mr. Akins stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A " *. Mr. Walker Smith, Jr, 901 Zurich Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith explained that the subject parcels would be substandard lots for the area because the subject street has large lots which is unique to Lido Isle. Mr. Smith said that Zurich Circle does not have garages facing the street and the proposed application has plans for garages to face Zurich Circle which would alter the environment of the area. He commented that there would be difficulty for the automobiles to get in and out of the garages because of the narrow street and the automobiles parked along the curb. In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner regarding the Lido Isle Homeowner's Association CC &R's, Mr. Smith replied that he has requested the Lido Isle Homeowner's Association to research the CC &R's to see if there are any restrictions regarding the subdividing of the lots, and he asked that the application be continued until the information is available from the Lido Isle Homeowner's Association. Mr. Smith stated that all of the residents on Zurich Circle and many residents in the adjoining area have signed a petition objecting to the application because the proposed plans would change the environment of the area. -2- COMMISSIONERS y t^ c�GOAo �G9 9 99 ti ink yy°� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Bruce Akins' reappeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that the Architectural Review Committee of the Lido Isle Homeowner's Association reviewed and approved the plans of the proposed project. Mr. Akins commented that he does have a letter stating that the plans have been approved. He said that the garages have been designed to accommodate Zurich Circle. Mr. Hewicker commented that the applicant has requested a modification regarding landscaped walls which will be heard by the Modifications Committee on November 12, 1986, and he suggested that the Planning Commission could request that the Modification Committee not act on the application but to send the request to the Planning Commission for original determination. Mr. Hewicker commented that the application could be continued for two weeks without the applicant's consent. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would feel more comfortable regarding the application if she could review the Architectural Committee's findings before the Planning Commission made a determination, which would enable the Planning Commission to make a better decision. Chairman Turner stated that he concurred with Commissioner Koppelman's opinion. Mr. walker Smith, Jr. reappeared before the Planning Commission and he stated that he hoped that the Lido Isle Homeowner's Association would have found conclusive information in the CC &R's regarding the subdivision of lots so that he would have that information available to the Planning Commission if the public hearing would be continued for two weeks. Motion x Commissioner Person made a motion to consider Modification No. 3226, and to continue Resubdivision No. 835 on November 20, 1986, in order that the two All Ayes items might be considered jointly by the Planning Commission. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. : x • -3- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A. General Plan Amendment 86-2(B) (Public Hearing) Request to consider an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to reclassify approximately 6.778 acres of land from "General Industry" to "Multiple - Family Residential ", and approximately 3.6 acres of land from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multiple - Family Residential ", and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Amendment No. 640 (Public Hearing) Request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 22 and 25 so as to reclassify property from the M -1 -A, Unclassified Districts to the R -3 (2178) District and from the Unclassified -MHP District to the R -3 (2178) - MHP District. LOCATION: Lots 614, 714, and a portion of Lot 715, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1526, 1534, and 1544 Placentia Avenue and 1495 and 1535 Superior Avenue, on property between Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue, northerly of 15th Street in the West Newport Triangle area. ZONES: M -1 -A, Unclassified, and Unclassified -MHP INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND C. Request for Density Bonus (Discussion) Request for Density Bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code so as to construct an apartment complex with 25 units for affordable to very low income families. AND -4- RID WI Item No.2 GPA 86 -2 (B) A640 Density Bonus, TS Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 'IF y -A ycc����Ao AG9y 9J� yy f A yc^ �y°yf�t�yS � y ` y , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 6, 1986 ROLL CALL INDEX D. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 25 unit apartment complex on the property. LOCATION: A' portion of Lot 715, First Addition of the Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1544 Placentia Avenue, on the easterly side of Placentia Avenue, between 15th Street and Production Place, in the west Newport Triangle area. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Mesa Development Co., Inc., Costa Mesa OWNERS: Keith Phillips, Christine H. Huyke, Donna Hudson, Jan Phillips and Vivian Phillips, Newport Beach Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, referred to the staff report and exhibits. He explained the subject items including changing the designation of the entire area, and Mesa Development Company's request to develop a 35,000 square foot lot, including a Density Bonus and Traffic Study to construct a 25 dwelling unit apartment project in conjunction with Community Development Block Grant Funds. In reference to the supplemental staff report pertaining to the subject General Plan Amendment and Amendment No. 640 indicating the total amount of development allowed in the area, Mr. Lenard stated that the maximum development in the area under the existing zoning would be approximately 1,000,000 square feet and under the proposed General Plan Amendment would allow approximately 211 dwelling units, not accounting for the Density Bonus. He pointed out that if the M -1 -A Zoning District and General Industry Land Use designation in the General Plan would remain as currently in effect, the project area would accommodate 885,750 square feet of development and 75 dwelling units. He said that the M -1 -A District is outside of the area that was annexed at the time of the County Triangle Annexation so the area does not contain the 1.0 times buildable floor area restriction that was • applied to the areas that were in the County Triangle -5- COMMISSIONERS y� 0 n Gy tPO�ii Fly syey y c��yo �; yon CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROLTMEALL INDEX Annexation. He suggested that if the Planning Commission is interested in leaving the M -1 -A property currently zoned as is, that the Planning Commission may consider applying the 1.0 designation which would limit the "Floor Area Ratio" to 1 times buildable area which would be similar to the other properties inside of the County Triangle Annexation area. Mr. Lenard referred to the exhibit comparing Cost Revenue of the existing zoning to the zoning proposed, which shows a decrease in net revenue to the City, and the traffic calculations projecting total traffic attributable from future development of the area under each of the alternatives. Mr. Lenard stated that Mesa Development Company will be applying to the City Council for $357,000 of Community Development Block Grant Funds to be used in conjunction with the project. Mr. Hewicker stated that in reference to the "floor • area ratio" of 3 times buildable area vs. 1.0 times buildable area, the 1.0 times buildable area is.for consistency between the various elements of the General Plan and the various Traffic Studies which have been done for the area. He said that the "floor area ratio" of 1 times buildable area would be closer to the trend growth projections as opposed to 3 times buildable area. In reference to the supplemental staff report, listed under "Alternatives ", Commissioner Koppelman asked for a clarification of Alternate #1 and Alternate #2, and Mr. Lenard replied that they refer to the "floor area ratio ". The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Larry Campeau, representing Mesa Development Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Campeau stated that he agrees to the findings and conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment 86 -2(B) (Resolution No. 1147), Amendment No. 640, and incorporate the provisions that staff. has provided in the supplemental staff report which essentially leaves • the areas classified on the map that join Costa Mesa as M -1 -A, leaving that area in its current classification -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX and reduce the "Floor Area Ratio" from 3 times buildable area to 1 times buildable area; Request for Density Bonus and Traffic Study, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion.' She reasoned that the Newport Beach area that is adjacent to the Costa Mesa/Newport Beach boundary currently has some industrial properties, and Costa Mesa has a very industrial area; therefore, she said that it would be pragmatic to not change to a residential designation against a heavy industrial site. Motion voted on to approve General Plan Amendment 86 -2(B) (Resolution No. 1147), Amendment No. 640, Request for Density Bonus, and Traffic Study subject to All Ayes the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. DENSITY Findings: BONUS 1. That this project provides affordable units in accordance with Section 65915 of the Government Code and Objective No. 7 of the City's Housing Element. 2. That because of the number of units and term of affordability, this request for a density bonus is reasonable and justified. Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a maximum of 25 units of rental housing shall be constructed on the subject property. All 25 units shall be made available to persons and families earning 508 or less of the Orange County annualized median family income as periodically published by Orange County, regard- less of family size, and rented at a rate that is -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 MROLL -CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX M • • affordable to persons and families earning 50% or less of the Orange County annualized median family income. Any or all of the 25 units may be rented at or below the Section 8 Fair Market Rent (FMR) Schedule for Newport Beach only when tenants occupying these units currently possess an "ac- tive" Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Certif- icate or Voucher and. currently receive rental assistance from the Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Certificate- or Voucher Program. Said Affordable .Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of building permits. The term of this agreement shall be for no less than thirty (30) years. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S -1, and; 2. That the traffic generated by this project one year after completion will increase traffic volumes by less than one percent during any 2.5 peak hour period at any of the critical inter - sections as identified by the City Traffic Engi- neer. Use Permit No. 3235 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a take -out restaurant with incidental seating which specializes in muffins and frozen yogurt, on property located in the C -1 -H District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 163 -23 (Resubdivision No. 673), located at 3025 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Iris Avenue, in the Albertson's Shopping Center in Corona del Mar. �D T1-Am Hn_ -'7 UP 32 35 Approved COMMISSIONERS 0�7<�0 yc��c4,o dG�,� 9N 999f .p yta CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Lloyd Flodin, Orange OWNER: E. Morris Smith, Newport Beach Chairman Turner stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter from the Corona del Mar Community Association dated November 6, 1986, and recommended that Condition No. 4, Exhibit "B ", be modified to read: "and a portion of the required parking spaces (21 spaces) shall be waived." Mr. Hewicker stated that the Albertson's Shopping Center, the site of the subject application, has legal non - conforming parking regulations. He explained that at the current time there are 76 parking spaces provided in the parking lot, and that' 139 parking spaces would be required under the City's Zoning • Ordinance; therefore, the shopping center currently is providing 55 percent of the parking spaces that would normally be required of a new shopping center in that same location. He said that if the subject proposal would be approved, there would still be 76 parking spaces provided in the parking lot; however, 160 parking spaces would be required and if that would occur the shopping center would only be providing 48 percent of the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker .pointed out that the applicant has observed the uses being made of the parking lot, and he has reported that there are various times of the day when there are parking spaces readily available in the lot. Mr. Hewicker said that the applicant reasoned that there are two business suites that are currently vacant, and there are numerous employees who have been instructed by their employers to park on adjoining streets which makes parking available for the customers. . In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker replied that the existing retail use generates a requirement for 5 parking spaces, or one parking space for each 250 square feet . of floor area. Acting Chairman Koppelman opined that the configuration of the traffic patterns in the shopping center parking lot are unusual, and she asked if any more parking -9- COMMISSIONERS Gyy� No 9i�y'�t^ �Z any yy°� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROLL CALL INDEX spaces could be provided by improving the traffic pattern? Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant may have made alternative parking arrangements with the Traffic Engineer. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Terry King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King presented a brief history of the previous uses and current uses of the Albertson's Shopping Center, and in conclusion he stated that the shopping center has changed from a destination point to a shopping center for the more discretionary visitor, the prototype of the customer for the subject business. Mr. King stated that a traffic survey that was taken during a two week period at the subject site has shown that the peak business hours are between 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., and that Friday is the worst day of the week. He further stated that during the two week period that the traffic survey was taken, there was always parking spaces available. Mr. King commented that the shopping center's master lease requires that the tenants park off -site, and he described the location of the 30 available parking spaces, which encumber the shopping center, for the 27 employees that are employed by the businesses during the peak business hours. He further commented that there are several employees working within the shopping center who live in the adjoining residential area and walk to work. Mr. King advised that with the exception of two people who were approached to sign a petition on behalf of the subject application, everyone was in support of the subject take -out restaurant. Mr. King submitted a petition totaling 120 signatures. Mr. King stated that a preliminary parking space plan has been completed for the Albertson's Shopping Center indicating that additional parking spaces could be added; however, he said that the parking plan has not been approved by staff. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Koppelman, Mr. King replied that the property owner has advised him that he would be willing to work with the City to improve the parking lot configuration. Acting Chairman Koppelman opined that she has never had • difficulty finding a parking space within the shopping center area. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y'' '0�'L�nyGy4o A p 9y qs G9y� m0 y�f � t^y November 6, 1986 y y y C�9y� C y �9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker cautioned that if the Planning Commission recommended a condition regarding the improvement in the parking lot to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, that the Traffic Engineer may not approve anything. The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding previous plans to change the traffic configuration, Mr. Hewicker replied that the parking lot has been previously reviewed on several occasions; however, he said that he was not certain of the results of the previous parking lot designs. Commissioner Person emphasized that he was impressed by the number of signatures on the petition and the applicant's neighborhood support in regard to the Motion x subject application. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3235 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ", including modified Condition No. 4 to read 21 parking spaces. He pointed out that the Planning Commission may bring the use permit back for review in accordance with Condition No. 11 in the event that the use is detrimental to the community. In reference to Condition No. 10 stating that "all employees shall be required to park on- site ", Commissioner Kurlander asked if that condition may be in conflict with the property owner's request that all employees are required to park on the streets. Commissioner Person replied that the aforementioned master lease is between the applicant and the landowner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. King replied that the take -out restaurant will have 4 employees. Mr. Hewicker informed Commissioner Winburn that the applicant would have the number of required parking spaces only on paper but not in reality. Commissioner Winburn commented that she has been at the shopping center during the peak business hours and has never had difficulty finding a parking space. Commissioner Person, the maker of the motion, advised Acting Chairman Koppelman that he would approve her recommendation of Condition No. 13 to allow review by the Traffic Department of. the parking lot with the expectations that perhaps the traffic pattern and /or the number of parking spaces may be increased. Acting -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Chairman Koppelman stated that she would support the motion, and she reasoned that the addition of the take -out restaurant at this location is an asset for Corona del Mar. Ayes lxlxlxlxlxlxlx Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3235 subject Absent to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ", including modified Condition No. 4 and the addition of Condition No. 13 to review the parking lot layout. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- .mental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and a portion of the required parking spaces 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. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3235 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimen- tal 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 development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plans and floor plan. 2. That no cooking or preparation of food other than frozen yogurt, muffins, beverages or related prod- ucts, shall be permitted in the take -out restau- rant facility unless an amended use permit is • approved by the City at a later date. Said amendment could require the addition of kitchen exhaust fans, washout areas for trash containers, and grease interceptors. -12- COMMISSIONERS Z4P ? 9Z 'y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROL CALL INDEX 3. That operation of the facility shall be restricted to the hours between 6:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 4. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utili- ties, parking lot illumination and a portion of the required parking spaces (21 spaces) shall be waived. 5. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 6. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 7. That all signs shall conform to Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • B. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjoining properties and public streets. 9. That a trash compactor shall be installed. 10. That all employees shall be required to park on -site. 11. 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. 12. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That the applicant shall retain an engineer to work with the City Traffic Engineer to review the layout of the parking lot to determine if it can be modified to increase_ the number of parking spaces. If the Traffic Engineer approves a revised design, the applicant shall implement the revisions. -13- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Use Permit No. 3240 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of an outdoor eating area on a proposed 'second floor roof deck of the the Blue Beet Restaurant, located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFad- den Square Specific Plan. The proposal also includes a request to purchase in -lieu parking permits from the City on an annual basis for the additional required off - street parking; and a request to change the hours of operation so as to permit the restaurant to open at 7 :00 a.m. whereas the existing restaurant does not open until 11:00 a.m. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested.so as to permit a new stairway and trash enclosure to be constructed in the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lot 18, Block 21, Newport Beach Tract, located at 107 21st Place, on the northwesterly side of 21st Place, between West Ocean Front and McFadden Place, adjacent to McFadden Square. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Sidney L. Soffer, Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Winburn stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Sid Soffer, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Soffer stated that he would agree to purchase four in -lieu parking spaces from the City. Mr. Soffer questioned why conditions have been added to the use permit because the plans have already been approved by the City. Mr. Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that the subject restaurant had been destroyed by a fire, and the Municipal Code provides that when a use is destroyed by fire, the owner of the property may rebuild the business back to its original design. Mr. Hewicker explained that following the fire, he met with the operator of the restaurant and the architect who is designing the new interior, and they reached agreements with respect to the floor plans of the restaurant as -14- INDEX item No.4 UP 32 40 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES oC, November 6, 1986 �y `` °'"'yy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX they existed prior to the fire and what the applicant wanted to do in terms of rebuilding the premises, and in terms of moving some of the "net public area" and enlarging some of the areas that were not "net public areas ". Mr. Hewicker further explained that based on those discussions, building permits were issued for the reconstruction of the restaurant. He said that since that time, there has been a change in the plans, inasmuch as the applicant is asking for an outdoor deck on the second floor, and to modify the hours of operation, and as a result of those changes, the applicant was required to come in and apply for the use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant does have an approved set of plans to rebuild the building under one set of circumstances; however, the applicant is asking for changes in the operational characteristics of the restaurant which requires the approval of a use permit. Staff has, therefore, suggested conditions that would remove a stairway and a trash enclosure from the rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. Mr. Soffer commented that he has been assured by the City's legal counsel that the structure could be rebuilt providing that any part of the structure that was rebuilt would be brought up to the Uniform Building Code and those portions that weren't touched as far as remodeling, would be left as they were, and he pointed out that the only remaining sections of the structure are the outside walls. He opined that conditions on a use permit should only address the necessity of the use permit and that he is talking about outside dining in the front of the building and that staff is talking about a stairway and a trash container in the rear of the lot. Mr. Soffer commented that there could be a compromise between the two parties. Mr. Soffer questioned the following Conditions in conjunction with the use permit and his rebuttals: Condition No. 2 stating that certain development standards shall be waived - "that nothing can be waived that cannot be required "; Condition No. 3 of Exhibit "A" stating that the "net public area" shall not exceed 1,618 square feet and Condition No. 3, Exhibit "B ", that the "net public area" shall not exceed 1,776 square feet - "that he is requesting 1,776 square feet • of "net public area" and that he be allowed to purchase 4 in -lieu parking spaces "; Condition No. 7 of Exhibit "A" stating no off -sale beer and wine shall be permitted - "that he was selling off -sale beer and wine -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 4 a o ;yyc, yGt^t^GG n mGyy 9N 99 �o yc^ - 9y�yGy f� � 4yy November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX in the past ", and Commissioner Person replied that this is now a standard condition for all of the Newport Beach restaurants and that Mr. Soffer had non- conform- ing uses; Condition No. 9 of Exhibit "A" stating that a trash compactor shall be installed - "he is not opposed to the request but the tenant will have to pay for the compactor "; Condition No. 10 of Exhibit "A" requesting a washout area for refuse containers be provided - "that the request was not brought up in regard to the original plan but only for the subject use permit, and he asked what connection there would be to the requested outside seating or off - street parking "; Condition No. 12 of Exhibit "A" requesting that all trash be stored within the footprint of the existing building - "that the request is not on the approved plans and that this would not be for outside dining "; Condition No. 13 of Exhibit "A" that the stairway be located within the footprint of the building - "same reason as Condition No. 12 "; Condition No. 14 of Exhibit "A" that grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures..... "he believed that the condition • has been waived by the City "; Condition No. 17 of Exhibit "A" regarding noise levels - "he commented on the sound integrity of the building "; Condition No. 18 of Exhibit "A" stating that all doors and windows shall be closed - "no one could get in or out of the restaurant if they would be closed at all times "; Condition No. 19 of Exhibit "A" stating the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions - he concurred with the condition and with the Restaurant Ordinance, but only with the intent the conditions shall address outside dining and any problems that would arise from that. Mr. Hewicker referred to Condition No. 7, Exhibit "B ", regarding two exits from the deck, and stated that the following should be added ",unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department." Discussion followed between staff and Mr. Soffer regarding the recommended conditions. Mr. Soffer said that during his recent conversations with staff, he had not reviewed the recommended conditions with the exception of the stairway and trash enclosure. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the use permit be continued for • two weeks to allow the applicant time to review the conditions with staff. Mr. Soffer opined that conditions on a use permit should only address the necessity of the conditional use permit, and that a use -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yG c^ t^G GAP mG9y9�99� ASS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 6, 1986 ROL ALL INDEX permit is only for something out of the ordinary as is outside dining, but a trash enclosure has nothing to do with outside dining. Mr. Soffer commented that he would prefer not to continue the use permit for two weeks, but that he would appeal the matter to the City Council. Chairman Turner concurred with Mr. Soffer's suggestion so as not to hold up the application for two weeks. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the applicant may start construction at any time as long as he has all of the City and Coastal Commission permits. Mr. Soffer advised that they are beginning their remodelling. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3240 including the alternate findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and modified Condition No. 18 stating • "that all doors and windows shall be closed at all times with the exception of allowing people to enter and exit the restaurant facility." In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the 158 square foot outside dining area, Mr. Hewicker described the second floor deck area and the usage. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. Motion x 3240, subject to the alternate findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ", including amended Condition No. 7 adding "..:unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department ", and to amend Condition No. 18 to allow the doors to open to permit people to. enter and exit. Commissioner Person commented that the Zoning Code states that the net increase will be less than 10 percent of the "net public area ", and that Mr. Soffer has offered to purchase 4 in -lieu parking spaces on an annual basis. Discussion followed regarding Condition No. 18 concerning the ambient noise levels, and Mr. Hewicker explained that the same condition has been Ayes x x x imposed on other restaurants. Substitute motion voted Noes - x x x on, MOTION DENIED. Absent Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3240 A x x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", N x including amended Condition No. 18. MOTION CARRIED. Absent x -17- COMMISSIONERS G�y�9 ��'9ff O ciy4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROL ALL I I I I INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surroun- ding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities, and required parking spaces, will not be detrimental to adjoin- ing properties. 4. That the granting of a modification to permit the structural alteration of an existing wall which encroaches 5 feet, 6 inches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley will • not, in this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the granting of a modification to permit a stairway to encroach 9 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley and to permit a trash enclosure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback would impair traffic circulation in the alley and would be detrimental to persons, property and improve- ments in the neighborhood, and that the appli- cant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3240 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detri- mental 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. -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yGc^�GG,00 mGyy 9� ?yy� A S' November 6, 1986 y9 y��ya�.y"y • `�'y 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and required parking shall be waived. 3. That "net public area" of the restaurant facility, including the outdoor eating area, shall not exceed 1,618 sq.ft. 4. That the facility shall be open only between the hours of 7 :00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.; and that the outdoor deck shall be used only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. • 5. That one bathroom accessible to the handicapped shall be provided for each sex. 6. That two exits from the second floor deck shall be provided, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. 7. That no off -sale beer and wine shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject restaurant. 8. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 9. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed use. 10. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 11. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjacent alleys, 21st Place and adjoining properties. 12. That all trash shall be stored within the foot- • print of the existing building, a minimum of 4 feet, 6 inches from the rear property line. -19- COMMISSIONERS yGc^c^G� mac+ m999�oAy GyNyf F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROLL CALL I I Jill INDEX 13. That the proposed stairway shall be located within the footprint of the existing building, a minimum of 4 feet, 6 inches from the rear property line. 14. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 15. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 16. That no live entertainment or amplified music shall be permitted on the outside deck. 17. That a licensed acoustical engineer shall certify to the Planning Department that the operation of • the restaurant will not increase the ambient noise levels beyond the boundaries of the subject property, especially during the hours when live entertainment is featured. 18. That all doors and windows shall be closed at all times, with the exception of allowing people to enter and exit the restaurant facility. 19. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 20. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. a * x The Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and • reconvened at 9:15 p.m. x x -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 1.147 acres of land into six (6) lots for single family residential development on property located in the R -1 District. The proposal also includes: a request to approve a rough grading plan for the purpose of establishing building pad elevations for the measurement of allowable building heights; the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 5 foot high retaining wall along the rear of Lot 1 which encroaches 10 feet into a required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Cliff Drive; to allow a 10 foot front yard setback on a portion of Lot 6 where a 20 foot setback would normally be required; and the acceptance of an environmental document. I I I I I I I LOCATION: located atf 505 A Cliff Dri e19,on the • southwesterly side of Cliff Drive, between Ocean View Avenue and E1 Modena Avenue, adjacent to the Ensign View Park in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Howard Tuttle and Bob Newberry, Costa Mesa OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Brion S. Jeannette & Associates, Inc., Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that members of the City staff met with the applicants regarding concerns that had been expressed at the September 18, 1986, Planning Commission -meeting. He said that one concern was the preservation of views from the Ensign View Park, and in particular, from the benches that had been placed by the City on the edge of the park facing the bay and the ocean. He commented that the line which denotes the sunset orientation was a point that • had been identified by staff as the point to be referenced. Mr. Hewicker referred to the October 23, 1986, staff report wherein staff questioned the accuracy of the applicant's view analysis; however, -21- INDEX Item No.5 TTM12873 Approved COMMISSIONERS yd ?� ?1 9 9 .o Gyy� u'� 9�� � p`y _ y9 yPs no 9 y t�,D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROL CALL INDEX staff has determined that the point analyzed by the applicant was the point given by staff following the September 18, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, and that the applicants did not intend to leave a portion of the view analysis out. Subsequently, the staff report states that there was additional view beyond the point between the Tokai Bank Building and the bluff adjacent to Newport Crest which had limited public view, and Mr. Hewicker stated that if the Planning Commission had a desire to preserve the entire view, then certain other mitigation measures would be required. In response to several members of the Planning Commission who had asked staff for an explanation of what constitutes public view vs. private view, and how the Planning Commission should look at the view preservation from this particular piece of public property, Mr. Hewicker explained that it has been the practice of the City to preserve public view from public property. He pointed out that the subject . development is located on a private piece of property, but the issue has been raised as to what impact the development would have on the public park which is located immediately to the east of the subject property. Mr. Hewicker commented that the public park has several functions (1) a view park and (2) a park that has other public amenities including a theater arts complex. He said that a question was raised as to the view that patrons enjoy who are visiting the park for the purpose of attending the theater arts facility, and what responsibility does the City have in preserving such views; wherein he explained that those are the views that are primarily enjoyed, not from the area where the benches are located on the lower and the most bayward portion of the property, but views that may also be enjoyed from an area which has been referred to as "ampitheater ", or which is outside one of the exits from the theater arts complex, and views closer to the street from the knoll which was graded and landscaped at the time that the view park was developed. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the Planning Commission probably should be looking at the area where the benches have been located on the lower portion of the • site, because that is where people tend to go when they specifically wanted to go to the site and look at the view. He said that with respect to the view from the ampitheater or the knoll, outside of the theater arts -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX complex, that the view is incidental to the primary purpose for which those people had come to the park for, that being to attend activities at the theater arts complex. Mr. Hewicker advised that the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission has discussed this issue at some length and that the PB &R Commission concurs with the development proposal as it has been submitted to the PB &R Commission and to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker stated that if it was the desire of the Planning Commission to preserve 100 percent of the view, then it may be necessary to move the structure that would be located on one of the lots further toward the street. Mr. Hewicker further explained that if it was the Planning Commission's decision to try and preserve more views from other areas of the park, then perhaps the Planning Commission should be considering making a recommendation to the City Council that they • set aside funds to purchase a piece of property and to expand the view park inasmuch as such a decision by the Planning Commission could be getting into an area of condemnation without compensation. Chairman Turner commented that Lot No. 5 of the proposed development affects the view from the park benches, and he asked if it would be possible to pull the proposed structure any closer to the street. Mr. Hewicker replied that the pad as proposed was a very shallow pad and if the structure would be moved closer to the street it might be that the lot would have to be eliminated. He pointed out that the Planning Commission does not have to approve the number of lots to be developed, but that the development of property and whatever mitigation measures the Planning Commission feels should be addressed are the mitigation measures that go with the project, and that the economic feasibility for the application is not the concern of the Planning Commission. -23- The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bob Newberry, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Newberry read ,a prepared statement that included the following fact's: that the applicants wish to develop a project in harmony with • the City's Zoning Code and the area encumbering the -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES $AA F Ft^ dG�'y�p999C C`ytny November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX proposed development; that the applicants have met twice with the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association, the. surrounding neighbors, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and its Director, and the Theatre - Arts Center Board of Directors; that the applicants agree with the findings and conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A "; that the size of homes on Lots No. 5 and No. 6 have been limited to single story dwellings; that the proposed cul -de -sac has been moved five feet; that six dwellings are proposed wherein the original plan submitted included seven dwellings; that the applicants .will develop a landscaping plan in coordination with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and its Director which will lower the elevation between the Theatre Arts Center and the subject site as well as planting new trees and shrubs compiled with selected tree trimming and removal; that the development of Lot No. 5 has been restricted to minimize the view impact; and that view corridors have been created for the public and private homeowners. • Mr. Newberry stated that the applicants are requesting to expand the conditions as follows: 1. "Grant an easement to the' City over the lower portions of Lot No. 5 for access to Tustin Avenue from the park by pedestrians, joggers, and bicycles." (The applicants reasoned that members of the City staff have stated that the City does not want the responsibility or liability for the access; however, the applicants would agree to an easement over the lower portion of Lot No. 5). 2. "Mitigate minor view impact from the westerly edge of the park by: a. Limit by CC &R's, the allowable height of hardscape and trees on the lower part of Lot No. 5 to an elevation so as not to interfere with bay or ocean views. b. Restrict the building envelope on Lot No. 5 to add view preservation by lowering the lot maximum roof elevation ten feet from 91 feet to 81 feet, past 130 feet from the cul -de- sac, the roof elevation may not exceed 65 feet. -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX C. Add new quality view opportunities to the park by the addition of two benches located west of the telescope in the better view panorama area of the park. This will be coordinated with the landscape plan with the Parks. Department which includes trimming and removal of selected trees at the westerly portion of the park. In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner regarding the proposed development's CC &R's, Mr. Newberry replied that the applicants would work with the City Attorney's office to write the CC &R's so that the height of the landscaping would not impair the ocean and bay views. Mr. Newberry concurred with Chairman Turner's statement that the CC &R's would be recorded against the lots. Mr. Hewicker commented that the City recently entered into an agreement with the developers of Jasmine Park • in Corona del Mar concerning the preservation of public views whereby it is the responsibility of the Jasmine Park Homeowner's Association to maintain the landscaping to preserve, public views and if the homeowners do not comply, then the City may enter the private property to trim the landscaping, and then the City would bill the Homeowner's Association. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the applicant's aforementioned Condition 2(b) restricting the building envelope on Lot No. 5, Mr. Newberry replied that the bluff edge adjacent to Lot No. 5 has an elevation of approximately 65 feet, and so that from the bluff area on Superior Avenue and by the imposed restrictions, there will be a full ocean view from the Tokai Bank Building to said bluff. Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect for the proposed development, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he described from the exhibits and slides a "walk through" of Ensign View Park analyzing what types of blue water and public views there are today from the park benches, Cliff Drive, the Theatre Arts Building, and the ampitheater, and the impact that the proposed project would have from the viewing areas. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding a string that is six feet high that runs adjacent to Bench No. 1 on Lot No. 5, Mr. Jeannette replied that the string represents a six foot -25- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 EROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX high fence that could be placed on the property line, and if constructed, what affect the fence would have on the view. He explained that the affect of the string shows how high six feet would be when viewed by a person sitting on the bench. In conclusion, Mr. Jeannette stated that the dwelling units will be from 3,500 square feet to 4,500 square feet in area; that each dwelling will be in conformance with the present structures in the Newport Heights area; and that the parking area will accommodate three automobiles per lot. Mr. Jerry King appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants, and he referred to the view analysis chart of the park bench viewing areas over Lot No. 5 that was prepared by the applicants. In summary, Mr. King explained that the chart showed that the "net loss of view by linear footage" of ocean view would be 0.87 %, and of bay view 0.09 %; "net loss of view by square footage" of ocean view 0.14 %, and bay view 0.01 %; concluding that there is less than a 18 overall view loss from the park. Ms. Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernadino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission as President of the . Newport Heights Community Association. She stated that the Newport Heights Community Association is of the opinion that there is a loss of ocean view from the public park adjoining the Theatre Arts complex, and from the westerly bench on the walkway below the Theatre Arts Building. She said that the majority of the Board of Directors recognize that this is a minimal loss, and that the Board of Directors is requesting that the Planning Commission attempt to find a way to minimize this view loss. Mr. Bob Long, 2516 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed development. He said that the applicants have met with himself and the adjoining neighbors, and they support the project. Mr. Vincent Harris, 2508 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed • project. Mr. Harris commented that the applicants have been working with the homeowners regarding height, view corridors, and deed restrictions. He said that he would like to be assured that there would be deed restrictions on plantings, the parking of automobiles, and on building heights. -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES f,-A yG�FGQoC+ mG9y 9� 99y� e y November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Harrington stated that the Newport Heights Community Association was not aware that there was going to be an issue of public view loss when the Association met with the applicants during their first meeting; that she was impressed with the amount of work that the developers have done in meeting with the residents in the area to minimize the view loss; that the Newport Heights Community Association has worked hard to preserve the views, including the Mariner's Mile area; that the view loss is insignificant; that there be restrictions on what type of fence that could be constructed, preferably a fence that could be seen through such as glass or wrought iron; that there be a public access walkway between Tustin Avenue and the proposed project, and into the park to allow the public to go out onto the bluff to see the sunset. Commissioner Person stated that he has a concern regarding public view loss vs. private view loss, and • that insignificant small private /public view losses will amount to a significant view loss in public areas. Ms. Harrington concurred with Commissioner Person and she opined that residents of Newport Heights have lost a significant amount of views during the past few years; however, she commented that she would assume that the significance would stop with this project, and that the residents would still have a panoramic view of the area. In response to previous statements, Mr. Howard Tuttle, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that there will not be a significant view impact from the park benches; that several homeowners had requested the string in the event a fence would be installed; that the height restrictions were arrived at by schematics; and that the applicants would be willing to install two additional public park benches. Mr. Hewicker stated that the findings and conditions of approval contain preserving public view from public property, and that there have been many statements regarding.CC &R's, the grading of the property, setbacks and height of buildings, and the preservation of view from the inland side of Cliff Drive, all of which are • private concerns and not public concerns, and he questioned how those restrictions are going to be carried out. Mr. Hewicker explained that when the City -27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES %ASj�FF y G Ac^ t^ G 0.0 n mG�y9N�PC Aye November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX looks at plans and the plans go to plan check prior to the issuance of building permits, the City will be checking the plans with conformance to the Zoning Code, and they are not going to be looking at whatever private conditions or restrictions that the developers have imposed upon themselves. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person regarding a use permit, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant could be required to come back to the Planning Commission for a Site Plan Review which would review each house on each lot. Chairman Turner commented that the Planning Commission should not be in a position to require certain CC &R's to be incorporated as a condition so as to be assured that the applicant will comply with the proposed plans. Chairman Turner asked what are the City's Development Standards regarding heights in the area? Mr. Hewicker replied that the 24 foot average roof height which would apply to the project is measured from the grade • as established by the Planning Commission on the subdivision map. Mr. Hewicker further commented that when the development starts on the property it will be up to the homeowners to enforce those commitments with the developer and not necessarily the City. He said that the City can only help to the extent that the structure is within the standards of the City's Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner, Mr. Jeannette replied that he would be willing to enter into an agreement with the surrounding homeowners. Chairman *Turner suggested an agreement be drafted and executed prior to the time the appeal period would expire and the homeowners would be protected. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn wherein she asked if a sidewalk could be extended along the approximate 10 foot area leading to Tustin Avenue in addition to trimming trees, Mr. Jeannette confirmed that the construction of a sidewalk would enhance visability for pedestrians. Mr. Tuttle replied that they would agree to extend the sidewalk but there would be a consideration of suitable right -of -way. Mr. Webb, City Engineer, stated that there is a parkway that is approximately 10 foot wide that would be within the • street right -of -way. -28- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A y G t^ l� G 0 mGyy ZN yyy! o Z November 6, 1986 y ` , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Roger Schwank, 238 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and described the circulation pattern for pedestrians and automobiles regarding the aforementioned 10 foot extended sidewalk area. Ms. Rayl reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the Newport Heights Community Association does not consider any view loss insignificant and that they concur with Commissioner Person's aforementioned statement concerning the accumulative affect of minor view losses. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Person cited that commitments have been made by the developer to not only residents who live across Cliff Drive but the Newport Heights Community Association, and the residents on Tustin Avenue, and he said that he would feel uncomfortable approving any project without having a further opportunity to review (*on x the project. Motion was made to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the addition of Conditions No. 32 stating "that any future development on this site shall be subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. ", and No. 33 "that the fence between Lot No. 5 and the view from the benches in Ensign View Park be constructed of open -type material ". Commissioner Kurlander suggested a condition. recommending the extension of the sidewalk on the southerly side of Cliff Drive to Tustin Avenue, within the public right -of -way area. Commissioner Person accepted the aforementioned recommendation as Condition No. 34. Commissioner Winburn asked for a clarification of the lot size from the cul -de -sac, and she opined that 110 feet would allow Lot No. 5 to have a buildable area of 1,525 square feet. Mr. Hewicker stated that the proposal before the Planning Commission is the restriction as set forth in Condition 2(b) as presented by the applicant, and Commissioner Person said that his motion was based on the applicant's suggested condition. -29- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Mr. Hewicker questioned the offer of dedication for an easement on the lower portion of Lot No. 5 for access to Tustin Avenue, and he questioned how the liability would be handled? In response, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the applicant make an irrevocable offer of dedication that could be accepted at some future time subject to insuring the liability problems are solved, and also that a Hold Harmless Agreement be executed subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Discussion followed concerning the issue of liability within the public easement. Commissioner Person agreed to an irrevocable offer of dedication as an additional condition which would contain a' Hold Harmless Agreement to the City of Newport Beach. In 'reference to the panoramic view from the areas of benches 1 and 2, Commissioner Koppelman cited the applicants offer to lower the elevation of the house on Lot No. 5, and she asked what is staff's opinion because the original recommendation was 110 feet from the proposed cul -de -sac, and there would be a change. Mr. Hewicker replied that it was not staff's recommendation but an indication of what staff thought would have to be done, and he said that the applicant responded by submitting aforementioned Condition 2(b) which was intended to address the issue. Chairman Turner stated that the applicant "s Condition 2(b): "Restrict the building envelope on Lot No. 5 to add view preservation by lowering the lot maximum roof elevation ten feet from 91 feet to 81 feet, past 130 . feet from the cul -de -sac, the roof elevation may not exceed 65 feet ", would supercede staff's Condition No. 17: "that no development shall be permitted on Lot No. 5 that is greater than 150 feet from the proposed cul -de- sac ". -30- In response to a comment made by Chairman Turner, Mr. 40 Webb responded that a parcel map would not need to be reviewed because deeds to the public are unusual in that they do not have to follow the same rules and regulations. He commented that in suggesting the irrevocable offer of dedication, not to recommend to the City Council that the easement be accepted until such time as it could be improved to where it would be an appropriate public facility. In 'reference to the panoramic view from the areas of benches 1 and 2, Commissioner Koppelman cited the applicants offer to lower the elevation of the house on Lot No. 5, and she asked what is staff's opinion because the original recommendation was 110 feet from the proposed cul -de -sac, and there would be a change. Mr. Hewicker replied that it was not staff's recommendation but an indication of what staff thought would have to be done, and he said that the applicant responded by submitting aforementioned Condition 2(b) which was intended to address the issue. Chairman Turner stated that the applicant "s Condition 2(b): "Restrict the building envelope on Lot No. 5 to add view preservation by lowering the lot maximum roof elevation ten feet from 91 feet to 81 feet, past 130 . feet from the cul -de -sac, the roof elevation may not exceed 65 feet ", would supercede staff's Condition No. 17: "that no development shall be permitted on Lot No. 5 that is greater than 150 feet from the proposed cul -de- sac ". -30- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 00 $Gc^c^G,on aGyy ya �P o ti� November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Turner asked the maker of the motion to amend his motion on the easement as an irrevocable offer to grant that easement without assuming liabilities subject to the agreement of the parties. Commissioner Person replied that he would concur if the condition would be amended to an irrevocable offer of dedication. In 'response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City could retain the applicants' slides of the proposed project. Commissioner Winburn commented that staff recommended the points of view from the benches, but the ampitheater has lost some view. She said that she would support the motion inasmuch as the mitigation that has been provided would satisfy her. Commissioner Person said that he would not have supported the project or made the motion unless he knew • that the project would come back to the Planning Commission for further review. Motion was voted on to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the substitution of revised Condition -No. 17, the addition of Condition No. 32 stating "that any future development on this site shall be subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission; added Condition No. 33 stating "that the fence on the easterly side of Lot No. 5 shall be of open construction, glass or other similar material beginning at a point along said property line which is consistent with the view plane over Lot No. 5 as established in Condition No. 17; added Condition No. 34 "that the sidewalk along Cliff Drive be extended to Oceanview Drive in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department "; and added Condition No. 35 "that an irrevocable offer of dedication for the 10 foot wide easement be made across Lot No. 5 adjacent to the All Ayes Municipal parking lot driveway ". MOTION CARRIED. -31- COMMISSIONERS 17� • MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. That the design of the subdivision 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 subdivision. 7. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 8. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 9 That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 10. That the approval of a retaining wall which exceeds 3 feet in height within the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Cliff Drive would interfere with the sight distance of a private drive on the adjoining property to the northwest, and therefore would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neigh- borhood, and that the applicants' request would -32- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �a oZ }�cg ��, November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 11. That the approval of a proposed 10 foot front yard setback on a portion of Lot 6 would not be detri- mental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the request would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because of the unusual shape of the lot. Conditions: 1. That a Final Map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a.standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements • if it is desired to record a final map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the design of the private street and drives conform with the City's Private Street Policy (L -4), except as approved by the Public Works Department. The basic roadway width shall be a minimum of 32 feet. The location, width, config- uration, and concept of the private street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the intersection of the private street and drives including the private drive northwesterly of the site,'be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, land- scaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping or retaining walls within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches • in height above curves. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Traffic Engineer. To obtain sight distance it may be necessary to regrade a small portion of the City Park. The grading and re- landscaping will be the developer's responsibility. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 8. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvements plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and submitted for approval by the Public works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the Final Map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be • required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. Top and toe of slope drains adjacent to the park site shall be on the develop- er's parcel. 10. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demon- strate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department. 11. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. -34- 12. That the curb returns at the intersection of Cliff Drive and the private street have a minimum 20 -foot radius; that the slopes adjacent to the proposed sidewalk along the private street be set back two (2) feet from back of walk or three (3) feet from back of curb; that a 5 foot wide con- crete sidewalk be constructed adjacent to the private street and that a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Cliff Drive frontage; that a 30" wide concrete pad be con- • structed adjacent to the curb on the private street where on- street parking is to be provided; -34- COMMISSIONERS 0 • MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and that the drive apron for the flag lot, Lot 5, provide a 0.7 foot hike up from flow line to back of apron and that the driveway be designed to provide maximum grade breaks of 12% using 6 foot tangents unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The drive access to Lot 1 shall be at least 25 feet from the Cliff Drive right -of -way line. 13. Driveways to Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall have a grade not to exceed 20% with grade breaks of 12% maximum using 6 foot tangents. 14. Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from curb, or back of sidewalk where a sidewalk is provided. However, garages may be set back 18 feet if roll -up doors are provided. 15. A Traffic Control plan shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer. 16. That the applicable height limits for future development of the subdivision shall be measured from grades as shown on the approved rough grading plan approved by the City Council. 17. That the building envelope on Lot 5 shall be limited to a maximum roof height corresponding to an elevation* of 81 feet as shown on the approved grading plan and that any development on Lot 5, beyond 130 feet from the proposed cul -de -sac shall not exceed an elevation of 65 feet. 18. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 19. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 20. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. -35- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 9t^,p�ZC9Z�ZZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I Jill INDEX 21. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 22. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 23. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 24. That any cul -de -sac, building address, and street name.shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. • 25. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 26. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 27. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 28. The project should investigate the use of alterna- tive energy sources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. 29. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 30. That this tentative tract map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. -36- COMMISSIONERS 6 �GZZ 90 99Z! 'e Sia - Z, Z !yal ;y t^9 Ty CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROLL CALL INDEX 31. That the applicant shall record a disclosure statement the form and content of which shall be approved by the City Attorney, which shall serve to inform any future home purchaser within the subject development that said development may be subject to increased noise traffic and parking demand because of the.nighttime activities associ- ated ,with the Theatre Arts facility. 32. That the future development on this site shall be subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. 33. That the fence on the easterly side of Lot 5 shall be of open construction, glass or other similar material beginning at a point along said property line which is consistent with the view plane over Lot 5, as established in Condition No. 17. 34. That the sidewalk along Cliff Drive be extended to Oceanview Drive in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department. 35. That an irrevocable offer of dedication for a 10 foot wide pedestrian easement be made across Lot 5, adjacent to the Municipal parking lot driveway. 36. That the applicant shall limit by CC &R's, the allowable height of hardscape and trees on the lower part of Lot No. 5 to an elevation so as not to interfere with bay or ocean views. 37. That the applicant shall add new quality view opportunities to the Ensign View Park by the addition of two benches located westerly of the telescope in the better view panorama area of the park. This shall be coordinated with a landscape plan with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department which includes trimming and removal of selected trees at the westerly portion of the park. r • -37- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yGt^t^GCAo �GZZ ZN 99ZC A S� November 6, 1986 Z9 ZC�Zaf,;ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1137 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to permit alterations and additions to an Variance existing single family dwelling on the bluff side of No. 1137 Ocean Boulevard which currently exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24%28 Foot Height Limitation Approved District. The proposed variance includes a request to further exceed the basic height limit without extending above top of curb on Ocean Boulevard and to allow the gross structural area of the dwelling to exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the proposed addition to encroach 9 feet 6 inches into the required 10 foot front yard setback, adjacent to Ocean Boulevard, and the accep- tance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Block 033, Corona del Mar, located at 2741 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard, at the southerly terminus of Goldenrod . Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Rod Emery, Corona del Mar OWNER: Doris E. Russell, Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to letters received from Elaine Y. Zweber, 2804 Ocean Boulevard, dated October. 28, 1986, and the Corona del Mar Community Association dated November 6, 1986, stating their concerns regarding the proposed project. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he referred to a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Franklin 1. Remer, dated October 27, 1986. Mr. King presented an overview of the subject application and he stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Rod Emery, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that every effort has been made to meet the concerns of the neighbors. He pointed out that the requested increase to 1.9 times the buildable area is a result of attempting to add off - street parking with the addition of a 4 car garage. Mr. Emery -38- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX commented that if the lot were of a more regular shape, he could build within the 1.5 times the buildable area without requiring a Variance. Mr. Emery read a petition signed by 42 neighbors in support of the Variance, and he pointed out that the aforementioned Mr. and Mrs. Remer and Mr. and Mrs. Zweber also signed the petition. Mr. Bryon Jeannette, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeannette described from an exhibit, how the roof will conform to the highest point of the curb. The public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Hewicker referred to Exhibit "A", Condition No. 5, and requested the condition be modified to state: "That all trees and shrubs located within the slope area of Ocean Boulevard and within the subject property, shall be trimmed or cut prior to the issuance of a Building is Permit, and maintained on a continuous basis.." In response to staff's recommendation, Mr. Emery replied that he has not yet closed escrow on the property, and there could be a problem trimming the trees before escrow closed. Discussion followed regarding trimming and cutting trees vs. removal of the trees. William Ward, Senior Planner, pointed out that the staff report suggested the removal of trees; however, the aforementioned Condition No. 5 states that all trees and shrubs be trimmed or cut. In reference to the overgrown landscaping on City property adjacent to the subject site, Mr. Hewicker commented that the City has property in key locations where there are public views that need to be maintained; however, he said that these views in many cases, have been reduced or eliminated because the City has not maintained the landscaping. Motion 1.111 IxI Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1137, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Condition No. 5 adding "prior to the issuance of a Building Permit ". Commissioner Person stated that he would support the motion. He reasoned that this is a proper site for a • Variance, and the residents in the neighborhood support the project. -39- COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES November 6, 1986 _@ \� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLLCALI-11 I Jill I I INDEX All Ayes I I I I I I I I Motion voted on to approve Variance No. 1137 and Environmental Document, MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)., the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. • I I I I I I I( VARIANCE NO. 1137 FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than other lots on the upland side of Ocean Boulevard, and the buildable area percentage of the subject property is lower than the typical Corona del Mar lot. 2. That the granting of a variance to exceed the permitted building height and area is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is of comparable height to other buildings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard and will contain a similar amount of gross floor area as other developments on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. . 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building at the proposed height and area will not be detrimental to the :flit COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 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 improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 5. That the proposed construction within the required front yard setback will not, under the circum- stances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the approval of said en- croachment is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Zoning Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan, floor-plans, and elevations except as noted below. 2. Except for the chimney, permitted in Condition No. 6 below, all new construction shall not extend above the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 3. That the gross floor area of the structure shall not exceed 5,2641 sq.ft. (1.93 x buildable area). 4. That as long as the property is developed with a structure which exceeds 1.5 times the buildable area, the applicant shall record a covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest in perpetuity, so as to limit the use of the existing and proposed garages for the storage of vehicles only. -41- 5. That all trees and shrubs located within the slope area of Ocean Boulevard and within the subject property, shall be trimmed or cut prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and maintained on a continuous basis so as not to project above a -41- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Gy 9� yy o yin November 6, 1986 �^.,a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX sight line established between a point equal to the height of the existing wrought iron fence located in front of the property and the back edge of the finished roof line of the structure. Said requirement shall apply to the full width of the site. 6. That the new chimney shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. 7. That the displaced sections of curb on Ocean Boulevard shall be replaced. 8. That the abandoned 12 inch storm drain that crosses the subject property be removed or the remaining section between the Ocean Boulevard curb inlet.and the property be filled with sand slurry. 9. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and • Planning Departments. 10. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and.other water pollutants. 11. An erosion, siltation *and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a- copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 12. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 13. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site, said report shall be subject to the approval of the City Grading Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit and shall include a detailed slope stability analysis. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" • grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. -42- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y ^ y November 6, 1986 dh 1� � 700\1r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 14. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the City Grading Engineer. 15. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. � � x Request to Establish Grade (Discussion) Item No.7 Request to establish grade for the purpose of measuring Request to building height on property located in the 24/28 Foot Establish Height Limitation District. Grade LOCATION: A portion of Lot 5, all of Lot.6, and a a Action portion of Lot 7,, Block 139, Corona del Taken T Mar, located at 3308 Ocean Boulevard, on the northeasterly side of Ocean Boule- vard, between Marguerite Avenue and Marigold Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: William F. Cohen, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Koppelman stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter received from the Corona del Mar Community Association 'dated November 6, 1986. Mr. Jerry King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that several residents on Ocean Boulevard have modified their property over a period of years so that now their property is not built at the original grade. He explained the inconsistency of the grade of the subject property from the front of the property to the rear property line at the alley. He pointed out that the two .properties adjacent to the subject site, and the subject property, were constructed on their lots prior to the grading requirements of 1972, and that the existing structure has an average height of 26.9 feet above the height of -43- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o y f y F yGc^c^GQo�p mGyy 9N yy o y� November 6, 1986 9e^yGyf�LCyy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the sidewalk and the rear height is 28.9 feet above the sidewalk. Mr. King explained that the applicant would suffer a loss if he has to go back to the existing grade of constructing the new project, and that he purchased the single family dwelling with the knowledge that the finished floor plan would be where he would start construction. He said that the applicant has to begin construction to what the original grade was because of the law of 1972 which forces the owner to redesign the home in such a manner that he may be subjected to a loss of view on the first floor level and, subsequently, an economic loss in his mind. Mr. King opined that if the applicant can build a new dwelling unit at the existing finished floor grade of the existing structure, then the applicant can construct the home that he has designed. Mr. Edward Reese, Diamond Bar, architect for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Reese stated that the subject lot has been graded • lower than many of the other properties on Ocean Boulevard, and that the applicant is attempting to establish grade that would be equal with the other grades that were established prior to 1972. He demonstrated a line that represents an average floor elevation of 10 houses (Line "A" on the elevation survey) and a line which represents the average between the floor levels of the subject site and the lots adjacent to the subject site (Line "B" on the elevation survey). Mr. Reese commented that the applicant is requesting that his site be compatible with the other heights in the neighborhood and for future property owners, so that there would be equal property rights, and also that the property owners would be able to build their structures up to a height of 29 feet to the top of pitched roofs. William Cohen, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that after he had purchased the home that he had applied for a Modification which was subsequently denied. He said that the house was redesigned to conform with the neighbors concerns, and then the applicant was informed by the City staff that they would have to build where the existing grade is which is 7 feet lower than the present structure, which would not be in conformance with the other structures in the area. He said that he agreed to build his home • to the average first floor elevation of the homes on either side of the subject property. Mr. Cohen stated that after he met with the neighbors, they were not -44- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH concerned about the first floor elevation or natural grade, but the maximum roof height of the house which would be 2 1/2 feet higher than the adjacent structure to the east. He said that the neighbors were concerned that he would go beyond the 2 1/2 foot maximum height. Chairman Turner stated that Mr. Cohen could apply for a Variance that would be a part of the public record as opposed to applying for a request to establish grade on the site. Chairman Turner explained that there could be other problems regarding the proposed development that the Planning Commission should be aware of. Mr. Cohen said that he wants the same property rights as other property owners on Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Hewicker stated that once grade would be established, the applicant could build a 29 foot high single family dwelling above that point, and no further review would be necessary by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker said that when the older homes were built on Ocean Boulevard, the City's regulations did allow the construction of retaining walls up to 3 feet, a placement of fill behind the walls, and the construction of homes up to 35 feet. He explained that now there are new height regulations, new ways of measuring height, and new definitions of the term "grade" that have been adopted. Mr. Hewicker commented that the City found that natural grade was unworkable in some cases for the purpose of measuring building heights; therefore a procedure was established which allows an applicant to apply to the Planning Commission to establish a grade for that purpose. Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant could apply for a use permit if he could design the structure in a way so that there are more public views provided than would be provided under the strict adherence to the maximum height limit of the Zoning Code, or the applicant could apply for a Variance; however, he explained that before the Planning Commission could grant the Variance they would have to make the appropriate findings for approval as established in the Zoning Code. In response to questions posed by Chairman Turner, Mr. Hewicker replied that the property owners within 100 feet of the subject site have been notified of the discussion item. -45- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yGt�c^GOAn wGyZ yw Z9yC A yF November 6, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH yy�A ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission and cited the series of meetings that have taken place prior to the subject Planning Commission meeting. He said that the applicant would agree to a Planning Commission recommendation that the item be continued so as to amend the application to a Variance application. Motion was made to remove the request to Establish Grade from the agenda and that the applicant work with staff concerning the filing of a Variance for the proposed development. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that because the Planning Commission is asking the applicant to apply for a Variance does not necessarily mean that the Planning Commission would approve the Variance and it does not mean that staff will recommend the Variance's approval. Motion x Motion voted on to remove Request to Establish Grade from the agenda and that the applicant work with staff x x x x x concerning the filing of a Variance for the proposed ot x development. MOTION CARRIED. x x x Amendment No. 641 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to consider an amendment to Section 20.10.025 Amendment of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to No. 641 permitting bay windows and greenhouse windows to encroach into required yard setbacks in residential districts. Approved - INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach - The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Derek Niblo, 121 Via Venizia, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Architectural Committee of the Lido Isle Community Association in support of the subject Amendment. Mr. Niblo stated that many of the structures on Lido Isle have a four foot setback from the street to the front of the structure. Mr. Niblo said that the bay windows tend to enhance the appearance of the street and the houses; however, he said that the recommended two foot encroachment could conflict with the close proximity to the street. Mr. Niblo stated that the subject • Amendment only addresses projections into areas where the front yard setback is ten feet or more; therefore, -46- COMMISSIONERS A �. 711\6000\11rls c^�0 9� 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1986 ROLL CALL INDEX the four foot setbacks that exist on Lido Isle have not been addressed. Mr. Niblo requested a blanket approval be made for windows to encroach up to 16 inches when the front yard setback is between four feet and ten feet, without the approval of the Modifications Committee. Commissioner Kurlander stated that the request could be included in Paragraph "H" of the subject Amendment stating that a 16 inch encroachment would be permitted wherever there is a 4 foot front yard setback. Mr. Gordon Glass, 2562 Waverly Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as a resident, architect, and as Chairman of the Architectural Committee of the Bayshores Community Association. He said that he supports the proposed Amendment; however, he cited a possible conflict between the proposed Amendment and the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Glass commented that the Amendment would allow the bay windows to encroach to within 2 feet of a side property line and the Uniform Building Code states that any opening within 3 feet of a side property line have to be incombustible and protected. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the frame for the window would have to be a metal non - combustible frame, and that the Building Department would allow a metal frame construction. Mr. Glass stated that bay window encroachments on the second floor of four foot sideyards may be objectionable inasmuch as there could be two bay windows opposite each other which would place neighbors in rather close proximity to each other, and could allow a neighbor to look down into an adjacent neighbor's patio or window. Mr. Glass further stated that the normal use of a bay window is on the first floor which would conceivably have a fence between two properties and that he would recommend that the bay windows in side yards be allowed only on the first floor. Mr.'Hewicker. stated that the conflict with the Uniform Building Code can be worked out with the Building Department if additional language would be added. • -47- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yGt` FG 4pC dGyy AN 9�y� A s November 6, 1986 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Glass commented that the Uniform Building Code only allows steel and wire glass. Mr. Niblo reappeared before the Planning Commission and he commented that previously the Fire Department had allowed other material for a bay window if a sprinkler outside of the window were installed. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 641 to Section 20.10.025 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, including the following changes: Paragraph 1, Section H. add "..Said windows not to exceed 8 feet in width may also encroach a distance of 16 inches into any required front yard setback ranging from 4 feet to less than 10 feet." Paragraph 2, Section H: "Bay windows and greenhouse windows located on the first floor of a *Ayes structure not to exceed 8 feet in width,.. ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S .S: - Additional - Business Motion was made to cancel the Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 18, 1986. 12/18/86 PC Meeting The Commission discussed the procedure regarding the Cancelled election of new Planning Commission officers following PC Election Chairman Turner's election to City Council. of Officers • � a Motion was made to consider Modification No. 3226, a Mod. No. request to construct walls and pilasters in required 3226 setbacks on property located at 904, 906 and 908 Zurich Circle for public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 1986. Said modification will be reviewed in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 835, Item No. 1, of the November 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. • : x A D J O U R N M E N T: 11:50 P.M. x x Adjournment PAT EICHENHOFE.R, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -48-