HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/1979COMMISSIONERS' Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES
Place: City Council Chamber
Time: 7:30 P.M.
Date: November 8, 1979
I City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
Present Ix Ix I x *[]x] Cokas was absent.
Absent
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS
Hugh Coffin;, City Attorney
STAFF MEMBERS
James Hewicker, Acting Director
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coor inator
Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer
Glenna Gipe, Secretary
* * *
Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe
* * *
Motion llxll* lll!Motion was made to approve the mi utes of the
Ayes x x x x xlregular Planning Commission meeti g of September
AMbn n 27, 1979.
Motion
xMotion
was made to approve the mi
utes of the
Ayes
x
x
x
x
xspecial
Planning Commission meeti
g on the after -
Abstain
Ayes
x
x
[I
noon of October 4, 1979 at 2:00 p.m.,
as revised
Absent
g of October
Abstain
on Page 9 to include a comment ma
a by Commis-
.4, 1979, as revised to include ad
itional com-
Absent
,sioner Allen.
Approval of the minutes of the re ular Planning.
Commission meeting of October 18, 1979 was post-
poned to the regular Planning Com ission meeting
on December 6, 1979.
• IIIIIIII "'
-I-
* * *
Motion
x
j
iMotion was made to approve the mi
utes of the
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x;
regular Planning Commission meeti
g of October
Abstain
K
.4, 1979, as revised to include ad
itional com-
Absent
ments by Commissioners Beek, Allel
and Thomas on
Pages 3 and 9.
* * *
Approval of the minutes of the re ular Planning.
Commission meeting of October 18, 1979 was post-
poned to the regular Planning Com ission meeting
on December 6, 1979.
• IIIIIIII "'
-I-
HPson
Absent
0
9x
h
� � y x w
x
x
November 8, 1979
z
Request to consider
posed construction
gross acres.
t Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
a Traffic Stu y for the pro- Item #1
of 140 apartme t units on 10.6
LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parc
1 Map 45 -10
(Resub,divisi.on No:.311),.and
a por
CO1
tion of Blocks 92
nd 93, Irvine's
TO
Subdivision, locat
d at 1601 .San
BEI
19'
Miguel Drive, on tie
side of San Joaquii
northeasterly
Hills Road, be-
tween MacArthur Bo
levard and San
Miguel Drive in`.Ha
(Baywood Apartment;).
bor View Hills
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company,
Newport Bach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
Motion was made to continue this Otem to the
regular Planning Commission meeti g of December
6, 1979, pending City Council con ideration of
General Plan Amendment 79 -1.
Request to amend the Planned Community Deveiopmen Item #2
Plan for Harbor View Hills so:as to permit the
Expansion Area No. 8 (Baywood Apartments) of the AMENDMENT
Planned Community for additional ulti- family NOS
residential units, and the acceptance of an En-,
vironmental Document. CONTINUED
TO DECEM-
LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 45 -10 BER 8,
(Resubdivision No..311), and a 1979
portion of Blocks 92 and 93, Ir-
vine's Subdivision, located at
1601 San Miguel Drive, on the
northeasterly side of San Joaquin
-Hills Road, between MacArthur
Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in
Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apart-
ments).
ZONE:
2ro
-2-
�x
m
November 8, 1979
M
Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
PLICANT: The Irvine Company Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
Motion x was made to continue this tem to the
Ayes x x x x x x regular.Planning Commission meeti g of December
Absent 6, 1979, pending-City Council con ideration of
General Plan Amendment 79 -1.
is
Motion
Ayes
Absent
is
* * *
Request to combine one parcel.and
a portion of
Item #3
Blocks 92 and 93 of Irvine's Subdivision
into one
building site so as to permit the
expansion of
RESUBDI-
the Baywood Apartment complex on
the property.
VISION.
I
A0. 6.37,
LOCATION: Parcel No. 1., Parcel
Map 45 -1p
(Resubdivi.sion No.
311),.and a
CONTINUED
portion of Blocks
92.and 93, Ir-
TO DECEM-
BER 8,
vine's Subdivision,
located at
1601 San Miguel Drive,
on the
1979
northeasterly side
of San Joaquin
Hills Road, between
MacArthur
Boulevard and San
Miguel Drive in
Harbor View Hills
( Baywood Apart-
ments).
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: The.Irvine Company, Newport Breach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
i
Motion was made to continue this item to the
x x x regular Planning Commission meeting of December
* ;6, 1979, pending City Council consideration of
;General Plan Amendment 79 -1.
* * *
Request to consider a Traffic St
hundred dwelling unit Senior Cit
velopment on 2.25 acres.
LOCATION: The northwesterly
of Survey 63 -45,
Pacific View Driv
-3-
for a on!e Item #4
n Housing De-
parcel of Record
Dcated at 2900 AP
, on the north -.
5.
0
0
November 8, 1979
M
ZONE:
APPLICANT:
OWNER
easterly side of
Drive on the Luth
the Master proper
cific View.
an Church of
MINUTES
Lutheran Church of the Master, I
Newport Beach
Same as Applicant
AND
Request to permit the constructi
Citizen Housing Development cont
dyed dwelling units, and the acc
Environmental Document.
LOCATION:
ZONE:
APPLICANT
OWNER
The northwesterly
of Survey 63 -45,
Pacific View Driv
easterly side of
Drive, southeaste
Drive on the Luth
the Master proper
;
of a Senibr
ni ng one h!un-
tance of an
arcel of Record
cated at 2'900
on the north -
cific View
y of San Miguel
an Church of
Lutheran Church ot� the Master,
Newport Beach
Same as Applicant
Wi,
Request to create two parcels of
existing church and a proposed s
residential, development.
LOCATION
The northwesterly
of Survey 63 -45,
Pacific View Driv
easterly side of
Drive, southeaste
Drive on the Luth
the Master proper
-4-
I
PROVED
NnT
and for an Item #6
for citizen
IRESUB-
Ui V I ZO I U
parcel of Record NO. 515
ocated at 2900
, on the north- APPROVED
acific View CONDI-
ly of San Miguel TIONALLY
ran Church of
V.
I November 8, 1979
�
S (City of Newport Beach
ZONE:
R -3 -B
APPLICANT:
Lutheran
Church of
Newport
Beach
OWNER:
Same as
Applicant
ENGINEER:
William
Blurock and
Newport
Beach
James Hewicker, Acting Director,
in 1977, this application was ap
City Council on appeal and the U
a two -year time limit. Normally
lexpired within 18 months after t
!final determination; however, be
:recognition by the City at that
!might take additional time for t
!Church to get the required finan
!various federal agencies and the
• !which to start the project was e
months beyond the normal period.
�he.stated that it took five appl
!before this particular project w
..it to the top of the list, that
jreceived federal financing, the
!that had been applied to the pro
shad expired; therefore, there wa
;but to.bring the project back be
!Commission. This project is ide
'project before the City three ye
The Public Hearing wa-s opened re
and Robert B. Cummings, 17071 We
Consultant, appeared before the
sion and stated that this projec
ced under Section 202 of the Nat
!Act of 1959 and provides not onl
financing for the building,.but
mitently commits Section 8 funds
persons of moderate and low inco
commodated in this housing, that
must be 62 years of age or older
of the apartments will be rented
annual .income is $7,800 if singl
• .married and that 30% of the apar
rented to persons whose income i
exceed.$.11,300 and Af married., 1'
- 5 -
MINUTES
e Master,
artners,
xplained that .
oved by the
Permit had
t would have
City Council's
use of the
me, that it
Lutheran
ng through
ime limit in
ended six
In conclusion,
ations to HUD
able to make
the time it
proval period
ct by the City
no alternative
re the Planning
ical to the
s ago.
arding this item
tport Drive,
lanning Commis -
will be finan
onal Housing
construction
t also co -com-
in order that
e may be ac-
the applicants
and that .50%
to persons whose
or $10,000 if
ments will be
single does not
?,.g50.
INDEX
November 8, 1979
,City of Newport Beach
He also explained that each of th
ing that criteria will have their
dized to the extent that they wil
their retirement income for rent
the apartments are unrestricted a
then informed the Planning Commis
economic rent of the project will
month per unit, all of which are
apartments, that.they had.receive
September, 1979, notification tha
has had both the mortgage funds a
Eight funds set aside and that th
time frame with the Department of
Urban Development that mandates t
the project under construction wi
time.
MINUTES
residents'hav-
rentals subsi-
pay 25% of
nd that 20% of
to income. He
ion that the
be $367.00 per
ne bedroom
on the 13th of
this project
d the Section .
y are under a
Housing and
at they have
hin a year's
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek, Mr. Cummings responded that these figures
change annually.
• Commissioner Allen inquired rega
service, to which Mr. Cummings r
will be accomplished with.a van
will run on a regular schedule a
the demands of the residents, th
is incorporated into their rent.
Commissioner Thomas suggested th
bus service be included as a con
40
IIn response to a question posed
Haidinger regarding the annual i
ITalarico., Environmental Coordina
this condition relates to proper
condition will allow the City to
in an equitable manner, as nrovi
THUD.
ing shuttle
lied that this
rvice which
determined by
cost of which
the shuttle
tion.
Commissioner
lieu fee, Fred
r, replied that
- taxes, this
ollect taxes
d for under,
John Tritipo, 2300 Newport Boulevard, appeared
before the Planning Commission and addressed the
recreational issues, stating that each of the
floors has a recreation area.and laundry faci-
lities and that a pool room, craft room and small
kitchen are also available.
am
INDEX
0
E
November 8, 1919
w
!City of Newport Beach
Dr. Stanley Kerckhoff, #5 Canyon
before the Planning Commission an
sideration for other alternatives
were explored three years ago and
time are being overlooked: 1) de
ing for this area is 29 units per
of 65 units and the request is fo
2) view - courtyard gates .which f
or backside of the proposed build
overview the garage sunning and r
of the residences; 3) height lim
of the allowance for R -.3 -B at 28
proposed structures are 10 -12 fee
that allowance; 4) ambulance and
traffic to the area will increase
ternative being considered does n
good sense of entry to the apartu
MINUTES
ane, appeared
requested con -
which he felt
at the present
sity - the zon-
acre, or a tota
100 units;
ce to the east
ngs and would
creation areas
is - in excess
eet and the
higher than
paramedics
5) the al-
t provide a
nts .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Allen, Mr. Kerckhoff replied that the nearest
emergency medical center to this location is
Hoag Hospital or paramedics originating from a
fire station nearby.
Commissioner Thomas inquired whet er they felt
the neighbors' primary objection as the blocking
of the view, to which Mr. Kerckhoff replied that
their primary concern was the lack of considera-
tion for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Ben Strict, Canyon Crest, appeared before the
Planning Commission and expressed his opinion
that Alternative 1 would be more pprop.riate, due
to the danger of the density of a ergency traffic
in the school area.
In response to a question posed
Beek, Mr. Strict replied that he
site should not be used for this
ment, but that he felt that.the
the project presently would be u
the primary traversed °area.to th
school.
Bob Benner, 3 Canyon Lane, Coron
peared before the Planning Commi
"iAl
Commissioner
id not feel the
ype of develop -
osest area:to
Pacific view,
front of the
del Mar, ap-
ion and ex-
INDEX
COMMISSIONERS
November 8, 1979
w Otv of Newport Beach
pressed the general feeling of th
Homeowner's Association that Alte
2 were more satisfactory than Alt
;they are lower density alternativ
In response to a question posed b
iBalalis, Mr. Tritipo commented re
'sons for choosing Alternative 3,
ithe earlier Scheme 1 was smaller
;age per unit and the economics ma
!mum of 100 units to make sure tha
ate economically and viably over
of time and that in.working with
!tees, it was inferred that it wou
ceptable project if all the units
Ift., so that they increased the s
land that these were shown adjacen
'lines which HUD does not allow in
space around the project, so that
around the back.of the project it
• lficiency in layout and in terms e
!security and identity of entry tc
'the location as shown on the rend
,site plan was the one which balar
lIn conclusion, he stated that the
;to the R -3 zoning and that the si
!a through drive access for parame
Commissioner Thomas posed a ques
eliminating the block wall, to w
expressed his feeling that the a
wall would be a little improveme
fact.that there is more space on
this property with which to work
adequately considered and the of
tives demonstrate dramatically t
made desirable in appearance for
dents of the senior citizen area
ment, and that the density is to
!Commissioner Beek inquired wheth
it or 2 could meet the HUD grant.
3 denied, to.which Mr. Cummings
;relating to P1an.No. 1, in order
!with the physical constraints. of
• I1 /3 of the units would be 550 sq
of the units would be 400 sq. ft
'footage is less than the codes o
MINUTES
Canyon Crest
natives 1 and
rnative 3, as
S.
Commissioner .
arding the rea-
tating that
n square foot-
dated a mini -
they can oper-
long period
he City commit -
d be a more ac -.
were 600 sq.
ze of the units
to property
terms of open
as they progres
terms of ef-
providing good
the project,
ring and the
ed the desires.
project conform
e provides for
ics.
on regarding
ch Mr. Tritipo
ence of a block
, but that the
he west side of
as not been
r two al te!rna-
t they can be
oth the resi-
nd an improve -
ibly high.
Alternatives
re Alternative
plied that
o fit it in
he property,
ft. and 2/3
and this square
the City of New
COMMISSIONERS
FHin
MINUTES
November 8, 1979
of Newport Beach
INDEX
port Beach permit and in order fo them to con -
!struct with that size square foot ge, they would
necessarily have to undergo the p ocess of ob-
Itaining relief from the building odes of the Cit.
of Newport Beach.
!In response to a question posed be Commissioner
!Balalis, Mr. Cummings further sta ed that the
!criteria that is now established y the Departmen
iof Housing and Urban and Developm nt under this
;program requires that all the uni s be one - bedroo
!units not less than,550.sq. ft. a ch, that Alter -
Inative 1 is not possible, that Al ernative 2
resulted in a reduction of the nu ber of .units
!from 100 to 85, even though the b sic. overhead
!costs are the same regardless, anJ that they.can-
Inot come within the $367.00 ceili g with only
185 units. In,conclusion, he expl ined that while
!their density of numbers of units may be high per
!acre, the resulting square footag of buildings
• !is less than what would be antici aced under the
conventional housing that would a eommodate fami-
lies.
IIn response to a question posed by Commissioner
!Allen concerning height, Mr. Hewi ker replied
Ithat the height limit in the area is 28' for the
!average height of the roof, that in the ca 'se of
a sloping roof, the allowable is 5' higher, or.
133' to the ridge and that in this particular case
!the height of the roof is 30'.
!Glen Harris, 39 Canyon Crest Drive, Corona del
!Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission to
(request that the Planning Commission consider
Alternatives 1 and 2.
Mr. Benner again appeared.before the Planning
Commission and expressed his feeling °that if it
is indeed a question of financial feasibility,
as the applicant has said, the only existing
!building on the property is the church itself
!and that there must be some way an architect
!could design 100 units in that location the pro -
,per size built on the backside o that unit and
• 'still answer the questions that need to be ans-
wered to make a viable project.
0
L
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
November 8, 1979
Fin ;5.. 1 ve-
S City of Newport Beach
n.response to a question posed b
eek, Mr. Tritipo replied that th
inary plan that has some minor m
vailable to it, but.in terms of
ation on the property, they felt
atisfies the needs.and requireme
nder conditions by the HUD progr
roperty line configurations and
ompetent to solve the problem.
,ommissioner Balalis inquired.whe
Iany way in which the buildings co
around on the site so that there
lesser impact on those 7 units im
j.acent to.it and still meet the o
the 100 units and of the Fire Dep
the church the opportunity to hav
expansion. Mr. Tritipo replied i
the studies developed coming to t
tried to address those other opti
schematic form some concepts coul
,could begin to technically.work i
stated, however, that:-as final di
laid out, it was-more important t
merit be placed in a pos.ition on t
so that the separate identities o
the senior citizens be maintained
Commissioner
s is a preli-
difications
he general lo-
that it best,
is as stated
m, setbacks and.
he one most
her there was
Id be moved
ould be a
ediately ad-
jectives of
rtment and alloy
its futur
return tii t
is conclusion
ns and in
be shown that
concept. He
ensi.ons were
at the develop -
e property
the church and
In response to a question posed b Commissioner
Haidinger, Mr. Tritipo indicated 1he..locations
of parking.
In response to a question posed bi Commissioner
Balalis, Mr. Cummings responded that his involve-
ment in the 28 such projects in terms of square,
footage per apartment have ranged from 550 sq.
ft. to 650 sq. ft. and that they all have been
either 100.; 150 or 200 unit_-projects.
Dr. Kerckhoff again appeared before the Planning
Commission and addressed the observations on Al-
ternatives 1 and 2 in which there was emphasis
-10 --
INDEX
w
a� �D
� In [ w �
November 8, 1979
of Newaort Beach
laced on keeping the proposed se
eparated from the church.. He st
at:ion of the elderly that they d
eparated from the church.and req
oncept that the buildings can be
he site be. seriously considered.
MINUTES
for residents
ted his obser-
n't want to be
ested that the
moved around on
ommissioner Beek stated his pref rence to explor
11 possibilities before acceptin this alterna-
ive.
r..Cummings again appeared befor
ommission to state that it was.t
ongregation to build a facility,
he needs of the community as wel
atible as possible with the neig
hurch must necessarily architect
ance of compatibility for the yo
erly alike.
the Planning
e desire of the
hat would serve
.as.be as com-
bors, and the
rally be a.1ba-
ng and the!el-
• !In response. to a question posed b Commissioner
Balalis, Mr. Tritipo replied that given the re-
finement of the preliminary drawi gs, the build -
jing might adjust two to three fee in one direc-
'tion.
Motion
Ayes
Absent
0
In response to another question posed by Commis-
sioner Balalis regarding the parking location,
Mr. Tritipo replied that Scheme 3 in the EIR
with the parking going around the outside creates
a common patio between the church and the units
themselves, which helps define a letter sense of
entry and helps visually separate the project in
terms of access.
otion was made that the Planning Commission make
he findings as set forth in Exhi it "A" and ap-
rove the Traffic Study.
Commissioner Beek
proceed with this
discussion of the
selves and other
ternative is the
stated his pre#
until there was
alternatives to
concerned people
best.
-11-
rence.to nmt
more informed .
satisfy them -
that this al-
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission make
the findings as set forth in Exhi it "A" and ap-
prove Use Permit No. 1784, subjec to the co di-,
I I 111 itions as set forth in Exhibit "A ".
0
0
ommissioner Haidinger requested
cLaughlin accept an amendment to
ondition No. 2, a condition rela
ieu fee, be deleted, due to his
ould encourage charitable organi
his by not taxing them.
ommissioner Balalis stated his u
UD provided these funds for that
nd Mr. Cummings responded that a
rojects, in order to be approved
on- profit sponsorships, must be
erty taxes, and as a result of t
hey had reached agreement two ye
ity that the project was schedul
he City in -lieu of taxes as long
f the fee to the City for servic
n jeopardy its exemption from Co
axes.
hat Commissione
her motion that
ing to the in-
eeling that thi
ations such as
derstanding that
specific pu,rposE
l the completed.
by HUD under
xempt.fromlpro-
is requirement,,
rs ago with the
d a payment to
as the payment
s does not put
hty property
r. Hewicker.informed the Plannin Commission tha
he fee is not a mandatory fee, a d as indicated
n the minutes and the staff repo t, the fee to
he City at that time would have een approximate
y $10,000.
In.response to a question posed b Commissioner .
Balalis, Mr. Cummings replied tha they would ne-
c essarily have to schedule into t e operating bud
get of the project an amount of m ney to pay in-
lieu taxes to the City and that i the operating
budget is reduced, the rents are educed.
Commissioner.McLaughlin stated.th t she would ac=
cept Commissioner Haidinger's amendment as part o
;her motion to delete Condition No 2.
i
commissioner Allen inquired whether deleting the
iin -lieu fee condition would allow that Alternate
lNo. 2 be economically feasible, to which Mr. Cum -
Imings replied that this would not be adequate, as
;this would effect only about $10.. 0 per unit per
Imonth.
-12-
INDEX
CALL
0
November 8, 1979
iON of Newaort Beach
Pommissioner Allen requested that
McLaughlin accept the amendment t
they require landscaping along th
building that would be at least t
break the line of sight between t
hew project and the deck roofs of
Canyon Crest located anywhere on
;that easement.
Commissioner Allen also requested
er McLaughlin accept the amendmen
it hat they put the parking back be
dents of Canyon Crest and the bui
n response to the landscaping as
ommissioner Allen, Don.Webb, Ass
ineer,.replied that there, is gre
arding the landscaping that is p
ide easement, in.that they have
ine that serves 1/3 of the City
he middle, a 12" water line whit
he edge of the property, and sub
rees on or within an area where
ary to dig in case of failure in
ou1.d greatly impair their abilit
ines as rapidly as would be need
ontinue service to water within
hat there is a condition include
e inserted within that easement.
MINUTES
ommissioner
her motion tha
side of the
1 enough to
windows of th
he 7 units in
e property in.
that Commission
to her motion
weep the resi-
ding.
suggested by
stant City.En-
t concern le-
t in that $0'
he 30" water
unning through
runs toward
tantially large
t may be neces-
the water lines
to repair the
d in order to
he City, so
that no trees
Commissioner Allen modified her amendment to in-
dicate that this was pending the atisfaction of
the Public Works Department.
ommissioner McLaughlin.accepted ommissioner
llen's amendment to be included s part of her
otion.
Mr.. Tritipo informed the Planning
it was a condition of approval of
be a separation of the two proper
Resubdivision request, so that in
property has to be self- sufficien
operation, so that there could be
within the HUD defined property w
traverse the other properties, ex
of emergencies.
-13-
Commission that
HUD that there
ies; thus, the
effect, the HUD
in terms of it
the turn - around
thout having to
ept in the case
Ayes
Noes
Absent
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
0
�i11
X(
x
P
November 8, 1979
on
Flom I
MINUTES
ommissioner McLaughlin expressed her feelin tha
hey must respect this church and its need t re-
ain a mixed.population, an entit in itself and
eparate.
!commissioner Allen had suggested an additional
!Condition No. 37 that the proposec project.shall
jprovide van services for its resi ents, which
(Commissioner McLaughlin accepted as an amendment
Ito become part of her motion.
x Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED.
(Motion was made that the Planning Commission make
.the findings included in Exhibit 'A" of the Staff
x iReport and approve Resubdivision o. 515; subject
Ito the conditions included in Exh bit "A" oflthe
Staff Report.
e Planning Commission recessed t 9:30 p.m. and
convened at 9:40 p.m.
Request to permit the construction of a second
floor game room addition to an ex sting single
family dwelling. The proposed development en-
croaches 9 feet 6 inches into the required 20'
setback along Big Canyon Drive and 7 feet 6 inche
into the required 15 foot rear yard (golf course
side).
LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 7 23, located at
83 Royal Saint Geo ge Road, on the
southwesterly.corn r of Royal Sain
George Road and Bi Canyon Drive
i.n Big Can,on.
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: William D. Eisner,lSanta Ana
NER: William D. and Mar arete Eisner,
Santa Ana
APPELLANT: Same as Applicant
-14-
INDEX
PPROVED
nwnT-
MINUTES
November 8, 1979
✓ of Newport Beach
INDEX
The Public Hearing was opened rega ding this item
and Bill Eisner, 83 Royal St. Geor e, appeared be-
fore the Planning Commission and a pressed his
feeling that the reasons given for denial are "not
valid reasons, in that there is no sufficient
ioom.on the property to build the tructure as
indicated, and were there sufficie t room on the
roperty to build it, it would thep violate the
building codes which require a certain amount of
jrght in every room; and in fact,.'t would block
off the entire living room window light area, as .
ell as heating ventilation. He f rther expressed
that there is 1100 sq. ft: of yard area remaining
t nbuilt upon, and.not building an levated room.
'ould reduce his back yard to 200 q. ft., and
that they have therefore proposed hat the struc-
Lure they desire to build is an el vated strupture
hich has landscaping under it and removes a traf-
fic condition of a block masonry f nce and replace!
it with a wrought iron structure. He informed the
• Rlanning Commission that all. the r sidents of the
area, including the Architectural Committee Chairm
for Big Canyon, as well as the President of Big
anyon Community Homeowner's Association have
oiced agreement and accord with t is project, be-
eause it will enhance the aestheti value of the
djacent area. In conclusion, he xpressed to
he Planning Commission that.there would be no ob-
truction of any neighbor.as far as view, and that
ther areas on 'Big Canyon Drive ha a allowed a-
nther resident to build to within 7' of the
treet.
illiam Gates, Architect, Garden G ove, appeared
efore the Planning Commission and stated that
ne of the reasons the Architectu a.l Committee
In Big Canyon approved this was th t their parti-
ular lot has no side and rear yar neighbors
`nd secondly that they had tried i itially before
esighing it this way to put the a dition on the
ear with the setbacks, which could not be `d-one, be
se there is no rear yard left aid it would cut
the light and ventilation for he interior
Ems.
I I I I I I n response to a question posed by Commissioner
eek, James Hewicker, Acting Direc or, explained
•
hat the setbacks are set forth in the Big Canyon
-15-
COMMISSIONERS
W xw
November 8, 1979
of Newport Beach
lanned Community Zoning District,
setback established for a lot wh
collector loop of 20', Big Canyo
he collector loop connecting the
ills Road with the one entrance o
osa Drive and Santa Cruz Drive an
he only collector in the entire P
Motion IxI 1111 111otion. was made that the Planning
the findings specified in the Staf
srove Modification No. 2465, subje
itions specified in the Staff Rep
ommissioner Thomas expressed his
his is a private community and t
arm involved, that the owner sho
onstruct the addition, to which'
llen agreed, stating her disagre
hat this application is in viola
islative intent of Title 20.
• In response to a question posed by
�eek, Mr. Hewicker replied that th
Canyon Community Association which
Architectural Committee who has a
that the City doesn't involve itse
ing the issuance of building permi
the building and zoning requiremer
dot a project is approved by the C
ciation or a particular Architectu
MINUTES
and there is
ch abutts upon
Drive being
an Joaquin
posite Santa
that this is
C. plan.
mmission.make
Report and ap-
to the Con -
t.
eeling that as
re.is no public
d be allowed to
mmissioner
ent with Staff
on of the le-
Commissioner
re is a Big
in turn has an
hairman and
f in withhold-
s if it meets
s, whether or
mmunity Asso-
al Committee.
n response to another question posed by Commlis-
ioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied Ithat when there
s a discretionary action, they do inform the
ommunity Association.
Ayes x x Motion was then voted on, which M
Noes
j.
Absent
Request to construct a two story,
'studio in the Cannery Village Spe
iahere a specific plan has not bee
�odification.to the Zoning Code i
since a portion of the required o
• spaces are tandem spaces `where t
quires that all required parking
accessible and usable).
-16-
ION CARRIED.
rt and design
fic Plan Area
adopted. A
also requested,
street parking
-Ordinance re
aces shall be
INDEX
Item #8
SITE PLAN
REVIEW N .
Tlr--
APPROVED
CONDI-
LLY
MINUTES
November 8, 1979
� w
a�
In City of Newport, Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
ORATION: Lot 10, Block 329, ancaster's Ad-
dition to.Newport Bach, located
at 510 30th Street, on the south-
erly side of 30th Street, between
Villa Way and Lafay tte Avenue in
Cannery Village.
i
TONE: M -1
PPLICANTS: Salmomson &. Fluter, Newport Beach
WNER: Arnold Construction Company, New -
port Beach
Commissioner Thomas refrained from
on this item,-due to a conflict of
The Public Hearing was opened rega
Mnd Russ Fluter, Applicant, appear
anning Commission and stated his
�ith the conditions., including the
Bested condition.
n response to a question.posed by
alalis, James Hewicker, Acting Di
hat the M -1 zoning at the present
ermit a residential use other tha
esidence in conjunction with an i
ity, and that he anticipated a zo
rea.
obbie Lovell, Chairman of the L.
d before the Planning Commission
hey are not in the permit busine
eloping a Coastal Dependent Elem
over Cannery Village and that th
erested in seeing that this area
se area, as people felt.communit
of in the best interest of the c
ffice buildings in the cannery a
ressed her personal feeling that
harming use in Cannery Villa.ge t
n top of the mixed use buildings
deliberation
interest.
ding this item
d before the
concurrence
additional sug-
Commissioner
ector, replied
time would not
a caretaker's
dustrial faci-
e change in th,
P.A.C., ap:pear-
nd stated that
, but are de
-
t which would
are.very in-
emain a mixed
wise it was
munity to have
a, and ex-
t would bel a
have apartments
Motion was made that the Planning Commission make
A x x flMotion
the findings as specified in the Staff Report and
Win x approve Site Plan Review No. 24, subject to the
Absent
-17-
x �
D
GtY `,
of
November 8, 1979
WOOM 2
MINUTES
ROLL CALL INDEX
I
j
donditions as specified in the Sta f Report, with
the,added condition that the stru.c ure shall not
be used at a later date for an office use.
equest to construct a combined coi
ential structure in the C -1 Distr
ation to the Zoning Code is also
portion of the required parking
em .spaces (where the Ordinance re
arking spaces shall be accessible
OCATION: Lot 12, Block 7, Se
Island, located at
nue, on the northwe
Agate Avenue betwee
and South Bay Front
Island.
nmercial- ,resi- Item #9
ict. A modnfi-
requested, since USE PER -
spaces are tan- MIT NO.
luires that all 1T'Z_1
and usable).
APPROVED
:tion 1, Balboa. CONDI-
119 Agate Ave- TIONALLY
sterly sideof
n Park Avenue
on Balboa
• ZONE: C -1
I
OPLICANTS: Harrison & Lorenzini, Architects,
Costa Mesa
j
OWNERS: Doug and J. Edwin Clark, Los An-
geles
dames Hewicker, Acting Director, explained to the
Planning Commission that there was a question
% aised regarding the location of the proposed
'structure in relationship to the proposed park sit
to the south. The staff indicated that the
uilding official had no intent to waive any re-
uirement of the Uniform Building.Code based on
he fact that the joint property would be develop-
ed as a park site and that there is currently
pending before the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission proposed plans for the development of
that park site,. While those plans have not been
firmed up, they currently are considering a com-
munity center type building located somewhere: on
It he southerly portion of the site, and on the
northerly portion of the site they are planning a
hard surface recreation area for volleyball and
half -court basketball. with a backstop which might
t
-18-
0
40
November 8, 1979
i
D.
In x y 3 City of Newport Beach
o on the common property line bet
ite and this particular lot. In
xpla.ined that in the event that t
f the Uniform Building Code were
or this particular private develo
reclude the City from developing
erty to the south; therefore, in
pplication, he suggested that the
ission review it with the underst
ust fully comply with the require
niform Building Code.
n response to a question posed by
eek, Mr. Hewicker replied that if
ular property were allowed to be
ordance with the plan in its curr
ion; it would mean that when the
o develop the park site to the so
ecessarily have to move their bui
way from the common property line
rovide the required separation be
n adjoining.property, and that at
ime the City does not want to giv
t has of developing its own prope
he Public Hearing was opened rega
nd Bill Hardesty, 503 Park Avenue
ppeared before the Planning.Commi
d the history of this site, stati
ant's concurrence with the condit
n the Staff Report, explaining th
ant has two alternatives; 1) to
ull length of his building 29' hi
f fire, or 2) go 5' back from tF
nd install chicken wire glass wir
uested, however, that the Plannir
pprove this. project, subject to t
ranting a resolution that the Cit
ntention of building within 7' of
ine.
MINUTES
een the park
onclusion, he
e provisions
o be waived
ment, it might
heir own pro -
eviewing this
Planning Com-
nding that it
ents of the
Commissioner
this parti-
eveloped in ac-
nt confi`gura-
ity got rehdy
th, they would
dings further
in order to
ween structures
the present
up any options
ty. .
ding this item
Balboa Island,
sign and relay -
g the appli-
ons as set fort
t the appli-
uild a wall the
h in the event
property line
ows.; he re-
Commission
e City Council
would have no
their property
r. Hewicker relayed that the applicant is not Pe
itted any opening in the commercial zone, within
' of the side property line and when there are
penings between 5' and 10', then the openings
-19-
INDEX
ROLL CALL
0
Motion
Aygs
N
Absent
November 8, 1979
I> City of Newport Beach
rust be protected with steel frami
glass, so.that any deck closer tha
side property line must be protect
tical wall and parapet 42" above t
Mr. Hardesty stated that this is n
the front, as it is facing the str
requesting the same treatment on t
the street frontage.
Commissioner Balalis stated his ob
fact that the applicant is coming
Fine, which freezes the aforementi
In response to.a. concern expressed
Allen regarding parking, Mr. Harde
his feeling that the more,parking
are, the more intensity of use the
Commissioner Allen then expressed
they should be providing by long =r
d solution to this kind of probl err
�n response to .a question posed by
Balalis, Mr. Hewicker replied that
predicated on the building.officia
ruling that because the adjoining
�o be a park site, that he can the
terpreting the provisions of the t
that this particular building is c
,acent to some form of permanent c
Hugh Coffin, City Attorney, advis
ing official cannot make an inter
the City owns it and could build
City could at some time in the fu
�nd to approve the structure as i
equire an agreement by the City
within 7' or 10' of that side pro
ever the requirement is, and reco
covenant agreeing not to build wi
to create property building separ
building ever be built there.
MINUTES
g and wire
5' to the
d with a ver-
e deck level..
necessary on
and they ar
side as on
ection to the
o the property
ned design.
by Commissione
ty expressed
paces there
would have.
er feeling tha
nge planning
Commissioner
the plan is
making a
ite is going
rule, in in-
ilding code,
ing to be ad-
en space.
that the buil
etation becaus
it, or the
re sell it,
is shown would
t to build
rty line; what
an easement o
in that area
ion, should a
otion was made that the Planning Commission make
he findings as specified in the taff Report and
pprove Use Permit No. 1921, sub ct to the con -
itions as specified in the Staff Report, pro-
-20-
7 � N
MINUTES
November 8, 1979
of Newport Beach
INDEX
ided that a sixth finding be addeJ that in order "
o construct the building as propo ed, that the
p licant will have to obtain a co mitment from
h City Council that they will no build to with -
n 7' - 10' of the adjoining prope ty line, but th t it
s not the intent of the Planning ommissi6n to
e ommend to the City Council that the easement be
r nted.
missioner Balalis stated his opposition to the
ement being granted.
pec uest to consider revocation of Jse .Permit No. FR2
28 that permits the operation of restaurant
an cocktail lounge in the C -1 District located
at 3444 East Coast Highway in Coro a del Mar. The
pu pose of the hearing will determine if said per
Oil should be revoked for failure o obtain the
she essary approvals for live entertainment now
ex sting in the restaurant facilit known as the
Jazz Pot.
N$TIATED BY: The City of NewportlBeach
h Public Hearing was.opened regarding this item
n Robert J. Houston,III, Owner, appeared before
th Planning Commission and stated that they.had
no received the letter of August 16, 1979 ad-
dr ssed to Carroll Coates. He then relayed the
0 tory of the Jazz Pot, and expressed his fe:elin
;h It there is a legal question to be resolved
be ore the planning decision can be made and the
be ief is that with the two permits they hold,
�h y are not presently in violation, that they ha
tright to conduct the business,, that they pur-
h sed the business based on a condition of p,ub-
pi record that indicated this use was permitted
'am at no time during the inspection or appli
ca ion process has any objection been raised.
I
Hu h Coffin, City Attorney, advised that though
�th City Manager granted a live entertainment per
Ii , neither the License Department or Police
• De artment has record that the live entertainment
-21-
MINUTES
j November 8, 1979
R C ty of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I I I INDEX
permit goes back beyond the 1977 p
though the permit may have been is
change the land use role of the P1
si n regarding the Use Permit, and
the City for several years has bee
ci ate that this particular use of
me it is permitted; however, the la
me its of Title 20 of the Zoning Or
probably prevail over the live ent
Vi ions.in Chapter 5.28 of the Cod
there is a provision in this Chapt
Ci y Manager, if one of the four c
me , may revoke a previously issue
tainment permit, one of which is t
noise from the establishment.for w
wa issued interferes with the pea
ihq neighborhood, as is the situat
In response to a question posed by
Allen, Mr. Coffin replied that.tec
• P1 nning Commission at some time i
slh uld have acted upon and approve
live entertainment in conjunction
to rant use before the City Manage
issued, but for whatever reason th
in this particular case, and the 1
me t permit issued by the City Man
Aa ory permit, but it looks to, an
th character of the particular pe
�h permit.
missioner Allen expressed her
ting without a license was 'a p
t this individual was involved
Coffin replied that the offen
ted occurred at the earliest 8
latest offense prior to the t
ion was.sought and had occurre
t that it did not justify a de
t alone.
rmit, that eve
ued, it doesn'
nning Commis -
the conduct of
such to in-
live entertain
d use require -
inance would
rtainment pro-
, and in fact,
r whereby the
nditions is
live enter -
at music or
ich the permit
e and quiet of
on in this! cas
Commissioner
nically the
the past
or disapproved
ith the res-
permit was
s was not done
ve enterta:in -
ger is a regu,
ng other things
son obtaining
eling that,op-
vious activity
n, to which
s that are
ears ago and
e this appli-
so far in the
al based on
r Coffin expressed his belief that the Zoning
)r finance would prevail over the City Manager's
pe mit and it would require an amendment to the
Us Permit to permit the live entertainment, and
. th fact that the City Manager issued this permit
-22-
November 8, 1979
i 711 C tv of Newport Beach
�i hout the City Council or Planni
approval of that activity as a per
in the restaurant probably was in
Planning Commission should make a
at some time whether or not live e
this site is an appropriate use of
Hewicker explained that:the qu
Department of Community Develo
Jazz Pot is permitted under th
conduct live entertainment and
records indicated that the Use
er that particular aspect of th
refore,. they requested the appl
Use Permit so that the busines
staff did not hear from the ap
choice but to initiate the revo
s to revoke the Use Permit for
on.
M on x Mo ion was made that this item be
h regular Planning Commission m
e>~ 20, 1979, in anticipation tha
the Use Permit would come back wi
a modification to it and that the
�ibn could then hear any addition
community objection to the music.
he applicant again appeared befo
ommission and requested that the
ome up with a set of points and
ermining that the combination of
ently hold are not adequate to p
o1which they are putting the pro
ressed his feeling that otherwis
ut in a position in which they s
ermit and are not going to apply
ation because in good faith they
1ready have the right, or face t
lanning Commission revoking.the
it and having them go through th
edures of the City:Council and e
uperior Court for a mandate.
Ayes x x x Motion was then voted on, which M
Ab tain
A4nt * ii * **
-23-
MINUTES
g Commission
itted use with
rror, and the
etermination
tertainment at
the property.
stion came to
ment whether
it Use Permit
research of
Permit did not
operation;:
cant to modify.
could continui
licant and had
ation pro.ceed-
he entire oper,
ontinued to
ti ng on De;cem-
the holder of
a request for.
lanning.Commis-
significant
the Planning
ity Attorney
thorities de-
ermits they pr
mit the use
rty and ex-
they are being
they have the
or the modifi-
elieve they
action of the
esent Use Per -.
appeal pro-,
ntuall,y to the
ION CARRIED.
INDEX
Motion
Ayes
Abstain
Absent
•
0
November 8, 1979
1&13 aD y City of Newport Beach
Request to consider.an amendment t
20.87.140 of the Newport Beach Mun
as it pertains to the definition o
"Dwelling Unit ", and the acceptanc
onmental Document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport
Motion was made that the Planning,
tihue this item to the regular Pla
§ion meeting on January 10.; 1980,
MINUTES
Section
cipal Code
the term
of an Envir-
Beach
ommission con-
ning Commis-
proposed Amendments to the PlannIno Commission
Rules of Procedure as they "pertain to Substitute
Motions.
NITIATED -BY; The City of NewportlBeach
ugh Coffin, City Attorney, stated that under
obert's Rules of Orders, a substitute motion
s:no more than an amendment and even though a
utstitute motion suggests an entirely different
o.urse of action than did.the main motion, tech -
ically under Robert's Rules of Order, if the
ubstitute motion prevails, it will require a
econd vote on the same motion before it is
dopted and the Planning Commission and City
ouncil for many years have been treating a sub -
titute motion as indicated here with the ex-
eption of the last clause, which procedure is
of strictly that of Robert's Rules of Order.
Commissioner Beek stated his preference that if
someone doesn't like treating something as a sub-
stitute motion and wants to treat it as an amend-
ment, they should call. for that before voting,
and.if it is called for, then treat it as an
amendment, so that if "A" is proposed and "B"
s substituted for it, if there is no objection,
the effect of passing a substitute motion is to
make "B" what is adopted and the effect of.fail-
Ipng the substitute motion is to go back to con -
Sidering "A" and if someone is opposed and wishes
to vote on it as an amendment, then it is con-
certed into an amendment and the effect of p.assin
-24-
Item #11
AMENDMENT
NO. 538
CONTINUED
TO JAN-
UARY 10,
1980
Item #12
PLANNING
COMMISSION
R LEA S OF
PROCEDURE:
APPROVED
U
•
city Of
November 8, 1979
ME
MINUTES
s to put "B" on the floor for con ideration be=
ause of amended "A" and the effeo of failing is
o leave "A" on the floor for cons'deration.
tion was made to approve the pro osed amendment
the Planning Commission Rules m. Procedure, as
Vised, as they pertain to Substi ute Motions,
ction.IX "F ", Conduct of Meetinq, to read:
F. Substitute Motions. A $ bstitute
moti.on may be made by apt member
of the Commission after; i motion
is on the floor: The sW s.titute
motion will suggest a di ferent
course of action or the pposite
action of the main motim . No.more
than two substitute Motions can be
placed on.the table for considera-
tion at the same time. 'If the sub -
stitute motion fails, the main mo-
tion remains on the floor. If the
substitute motion passes, it will
cancel out the main motion. Prior
to voting on the substitute motion,
any member.of. the commission may
ask to have the substitute motion
treated as an amendment,, in which
case the substitute motion is
treated as an amendment.
here being no further business, I
ommission adjourned at 11:45 p.m::
-25-
Debra Al
Planning
City of
Planning
ecretar
, Y
ommission
wport Beach
INDEX