Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/1996CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ridgeway, Selich, Ashley, and Gifford. Commissioner Adams was excused. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, Communityand Economic Development Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner goJay Garcia, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Niki Kallikounis, Planning Secretary Minutes of Decembers. 1996: Motion was made by Commissioner Selich and voted to approve as amended the November 2l, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: Adams Public Comments : none Postina of the Agenda: Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Wednesday, November 27, 1996, outside of City Hall. • IN Minutes Amended and Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 ECT: The Ebell Club 515 -521 West Balboa Boulevard • GPA No. 95 -1 (E) • LCP No. 40 • Amendment No. 857 Amend the General Plan Land Use Element to redesignate the Ebell Club property from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" to "Single Family Residential," and rezone the property from R -3 to R -1. The Planning Director summarized the history of the GPA and rezone for the Ebell Club. This item was considered by the Planning Commission a few months ago and was ultimately withdrawn before the City Council hearing. This application is the same as previously considered and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Public hearing was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich for approval of GPA No. 95-1 (E), LCP No. 40, Amendment No. 857. is Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: None Absent: Adams Abstain: None SUBJECT: 414 Poinsettia Avenue • No. 96 -7 and • Modification No. 4495 (continued from November 5, 1996) Planning Commission review of the action of the Modifications Committee which approved a request to permit the adjustment of an interior lot line in conjunctionwith the construction of two new duplexes on property located in the R -2 District (N.B.L.L.A. No. 96 -7). Also included in this application is a request to permit the construction of two single -car garages with an interior width of 9 feet each, where the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 9 feet 4 inches. These garages are proposed in conjunction with the two new duplexes which will result from the above noticed lot line adjustment. Each duplex will maintain two single -car garages and a two-car carport. Planning Director Temple related that subsequent to the actions of the Modifications Committee and, as the result of queries by several members of the community, the City Attorney researched the basis upon which the Modifications Committee took its action and concluded there was not sufficient basis within the City Codes to allow • INDEX Item No. 1 Approved Rem No. 2 Approved to reverse decision of Modifications Comm. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 the approval of the lot line adjustment. As a result, and as is evidenced in the staff report, staff has suggested reversal of this decision and the denial of N.B.L.L.A. No. 96- 7 and Modification No. 4495. Chairman Kranzley asked if there were any questions for the staff. Commissioner Gifford noted that the staff report contained a letter from Nigel Bailey which states in paragraph 1, "It has been established that a 25' x 118' lot ... is buildable" and referencesthe telephone conversation With the Planning Department. Commissioner Gifford requested the background of this statement. Planning Director Temple responded that she was not familiar with the particular conversation that had occurred, but believed that the statement is, "...a 25' x 118' lot is buildable with appropriately reduced square footage." It is physically possible to construct a building on a 25x 1 18' lot, but that is not the issue before the Commission. Commissioner Gifford stated that her presumption was that the use of the word buildable was being used in a technical sense. She asked if it is the Planning Staff's position that the statement is incorrect in terms of legally buildable? Planning Director Temple stated that, in this particular case, the suggestion is not whether the lot is buildable or not, but that there is not sufficient evidence to document the establishment as a separate building parcel the 20 foot segment of the portion lot that together with a 30 foot lot creates a 50 foot frontage. In that sense the • statement is somewhat irrelevant. Commissioner Gifford stated that the statement becomes relevant, depending on whether it is correct or incorrect, in the sense that, under code if you don't resort to the exception for having been under one ownership prior to the date that's referenced, is 25 feet a legally buildable lot under the current code without going to the exception for the parcel that has been registered? Planning Director Temple noted if there is a lot we can show has been legally established as of August 1943 and is in fact 25 x 118, and is owned by someone, those would be the circumstances where the lot could be buildable and there could be portions of lots in the City that have those conditions. Commissioner Gifford asked if that were not the case that this lot did not meet those requirements, is a 25 foot lot a buildable lot today. Planning DirectorTemple answered no. Commissioner Selich asked about the report the City Attorney wrote as part of the staff report. On page 5, the reported conclusion speaks of the use of the City's merging ordinances. He asked for an explanation of what those ordinances are and why they would not recommend the use of them or why they haven't been used in the past. Assistant City Attorney Clauson answered that she couldn't do that without a full reference to the merger ordinances in the City and the full reference to the merger provisions in the subdivision code. She noted that because the merger ordinance wasn't the subject of the memorandum, it wasn't thoroughly researched. The attorney's office could look into those provisions in the future if that is the desire of the City Council. Public Hearing was opened. 1J INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 Mr. Harry Marsh of 412 -414 Poinsettia Avenue stated that he had read the staff report and had no questions, but would like to make comments. When he first heard a 50 foot parcel was for sale at 414 Poinsettia, he went to the Planning Department to ask if there was something that could be done with a 20 and 30 foot parcel, and if it could be divided into two 25 foot lots. Mr. Marsh stated that the Planning Department thought that it was possible but it would have to go through a lot line adjustment hearing. He submitted the application, did the engineering, went to the meeting, an(J it was approved. The approval is now being challenged. There are many 25 fool lots in the City of Newport Beach and it's a logical solution to a problem. Reversing this decision is not going to result in a quality product being built on the property that would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Nigel Bailey of 531 DeAnza Road, Corona del Mar, the selling agent on the subject property made the following comments opposing a reversal decision: • to require 50 and 60 foot lot widths is not appropriate in an area of 30 foot standard lots • the City has never denied a similar request • that cities are required to provide affordable housing • that there are five 25 foot wide lots in Corona del Mar • that the project will provide additional parking in the area • Mr. Phil Sansone as Chairman of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, an organization of nearly 1,000 property owners and residents, made the following comments in favor of a reversal decision: • the community has a concern regarding large structures built on small lots • three foot side yards with a property line fence are inadequate for safety access • tandem parking does not work in Corona del mar • the hearing was inadequately noticed • the Association opposes the applications and supports the recommendation for denial based upon the findings contained in the staff report and the City Attorney's memo Chairman Kranzley asked staff for responses regarding noticing and the side yard setback? Staff indicated that there are no specific provisions in the Code for appeals, but that this hearing was given notice in a manner similar to the original applications. Ms. Temple further explained that the typical side yard setback in Corona del Mar is 3 feet. The Newport Beach Fire Department has never raised an issue with this narrow setback, since they would be unlikely to access a structure from the setback in the event of a fire. Melissa Olsen, 315 Poinsettia, old Corona del Mar, stated that she opposes the exception to reduce the described lots to less than 30 feet and the interior width of the garages. • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 Pat Kaufman, 3701 Seaview spoke in opposition to the proposed applications. Jeffrey Quinn, 420 Poinsettia, Corona del Mar, stated that he has remodeled a single family home into a duplex and continues to own it as an investment. The remodel was done within existing guidelines of the City and required no modifications. Recently, he bought the structure at 707 Poinsettia and plans to remodel it into a duplex within the guidelines of 30 foot lot and is not asking for any modification or exception from the City. He does not approve of the large homes being built on lot line to lot line, and sees no reason to provide an exception to Mr. Marsh's property. Loraine Schoberg, 418 Poinsettia, stated that the Fire Department will use a side yard to access a home if there is no other way to get in. Roger Summers, 320 and 324 Orchard, Corona del Mar, asked for a point of clarification from staff. He would like to know if in Corona del Mar he is dealing with 30 foot lots (he has three of them), 25 foot lots, or 50 foot lots? Is there a minimum building size lot? Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Summers a clarifying question as to whether his three lots were contiguous, and Mr. Summers said they were. • Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that Mr. Summers read the staff report and legal opinion because they will answer all of his questions. Planning Director Temple stated that nowhere in the Code is there a specific reference to 30 or 25 foot lots, as they approve or require lot width. The only reference available is the site size limitations which require that, for a new subdivision the lots be a minimum of 50 feet wide and 5,000 square feet in total size and 60 feet in width and 6,000 total feet in size on corners. Immediately following there is a reference to the legality of all lots which have been legally established at the time the code was adopted which was in 1943 and it affirmed the legality and buildability of lots which were below that standard but which had been legally established through subdivision map or parcel map. In Corona del Mar, the subdivision grid is largely constituted of lots which are 30 feet x 118 feet, and when a property owner owns three fully whole 30 foot wide lots which are the original Corona del Mar subdivision, the information he would have received at the Counter is that, "as full conforming 30 x 118 foot lots, as portrayed in the original subdivision, each of those lots would be a buildable lot." Commissioner Ridgeway asked if there was a subdivision map act prior to 1943 or some type of legal scheme to revive Old Corona del Mar. Assistant City Attorney Clauson responded by saying that she believed the history of the subdivision map act goes to the late 1800's and was and had various revisions to it over the years, and thus is not familiar with the exact status of some of these map acts when they were first subdivided in 1920 except to the extent that there was some requirement that • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 properties that were subdivided be required to file some sort of map. Commission Ridgeway asked if the Assistant City Attorney's opinion was that, since this grid was created in 1920 and we adopted our first code in 1943, at that point in time it adopted or legalized that entire tract. Assistant City Attorney Clauson responded that it validated all the existing filed subdivision maps in the city. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if there were any 25 foot lots in Old Corona del Mar, and Assistant City Attorney Clauson responded that the point of the City Attorney's memo is that if there were any parcels that could show that they were developed at that time and were legally created at that time, not in violation of the subdivision map, then they are also exempt. In this particular case, the applicant has not shown that fact to meet that exception. Commissioner Gifford stated it seems to her that from the various items provided in the staff report, that the 25 foot lot would have been created no earlier than April 1974, when the Planning Commission approved the lot line adjustment for the 30 foot lot. Todd Schooler, 214 Carnation, Corona del Mar, stated that a number of people called him and their concern is that any decision made this evening does not affect them by setting a precedent. He noticed in the staff report that this needs some study. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Mr. Schooler was supporting, not supporting . or taking a neutral position on the application. Mr. Schooler responded that he was taking a neutral position. Harry Ecles, 219 Poinsettia, has a copy of the City Attorney's letter to Dennis O'Neil stating this is not an acceptable plan as for as this particular lot line adjustment. He has a copy of the staff report which basically says the some thing. Moreover, he has a letter with over 200 signatures from the community which do not want this to happen. He requests the Commission to reject this lot line adjustment. Nigel Bailey, 531 DeAnza, Corona del Mar, stated he has been involved with a number of properties in Corona del Mar. When builders ask what the lot size is, he calls the City. He said the City has always told him, until today, that the minimum buildable lot size in Corona del Mar is 25 feet. That is minimum, the standard lot size is 30 feet. Mike Greer, 215 Poinsettia, Corona del Mar, stated he is not here to either support or oppose the lot line adjustment for this particular property. He wants to clarify that his remarks are pertaining to just that property because there has been a history of exceptions to the 50 foot, 5,000 sq. ft. dwelling rule. He is concerned that the Commission is at the tip of an iceberg and that any ruling made tonight does not automaticallyimply to other projects. Assistant City Attorney Clauson noted that the regulations that are being applied to this application exist now and are not being changed or modified. These regulations would apply to any future applications as well. It would depend on a case by case, • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 lot by lot basis as to how the regulations would apply to those lots. Bob Keeler, 2921 4th Avenue, Corona del Mar, as one of approximately30 owners of half lots in Corona del Mar wanted to make sure that whatever the actions of the Commission are this evening, do not hinder his ability to add on to a smaller lot in Corona del Mar or possibly re -build in Corona del Mar. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Keeler how big his lot is. Mr. Keeler responded 30'x 43'33". Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Selich had a question for the City Attorney's office. Reading the legal opinion, it appears that a 30 foot lot is a legal building site and he assumes that the applicant can tear down the existing structure and construct a duplex on a 30 foot lot and convey that off as a separate parcel then he would be left with a 20 foot wide building site which is not a legal buildable lot. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that it is her understanding that a 30 foot lot is one of the originally subdivided 30 foot lots, a legal buildable lot. The 20 foot lot is not a legal buildable lot. Assistant City Attorney Clauson noted that what can happen is that people will sometimes create over a period of time lots by deed. A lot or parcel by deed does not necessarily make the lot a legal subdivided parcel. Commissioner Selich noted that reading through the material they received, there are three classes of lots in Corona • del Mar. There are lots prior to 1943 that are lots that were of record under one ownership and they are legal building sites and a legal lot. Assistant City Attorney Clauson acknowledged that the statement is correct. Commissioner Selich went on to note that there are lots established between 1943 and March 4, 1972 at the time of the McCarthy Act and there are lots that are legal building sites and legal lots that were created either by the City's subdivision ordinance or that were conveyed by deed or other instrument provided the parties involved in the transaction believed they were doing it lawfully. Assistant City Attorney Clauson noted that if it was done in accordance with a lawful or subdivision. Commissioner Selich noted that the statement says, " are considered lawfully created so long as subsequent purchaser acquired the parcel a valuable consideration without actual or constructive knowledge of a violation of a legal ordinance." Assistant City Attorney Clauson acknowledged the statement. Commissioner Selich noted if someone acquired the 20 foot lot during that period of time and fit that circumstance of knowledge and type of purchase, then that 20 foot lot would be considered a legal building site and a legal lot, is that correct. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that she thinks under that hypothetical situation, it would be correct but does not know as yet. Commissioner Selich went on to note the third class of lots would be any parcels that were created pursuant to local subdivision ordinances after March 4, 1972. Assistant City AttomeyCiauson agreed. Commissioner Ashley questioned Assistant City Attorney Clauson concerning the finding made by the City Attomey's office that the parcel in question comprise of two legal buildable lots. It is found that there is one conforming lot 50 foot lot existing at that location. Under those circumstances it is not necessary to build on just the 30 • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 foot side of the lot which is conforming. A single owner of a 50 foot lot may use the entire lot for whateverthe zoning code will permit. We are here faced with a situation where enabling legislation in the City is lacking to subdivide a 50 foot into smaller lots which would make one or both of the lots non - conforming. In other words you cannot take a 50 foot lot that is a conforming lot and subdivide it into a 20 foot lot and a 30 foot lot or into two 25 foot lots because that ordinance does not exist for us to do that. Assistant City Attorney Clauson noted that you would have to do a subdivision map and meet the findings of that map. Commissioner Ashley stated he. sees the situation as the applicant asking the Commission to do something that is not legal to do. Assistant City Manager Wood noted that there would be the possibility of the process we described earlier of a parcel map and a request for an exception from the subdivision code but then those findings would have to be made and whether they could or not in this case is not determined. Commissioner Selich noted regarding his comments on the three classes of lots, his understanding is the structure built on these two lots was built in 1949 or late forties and that would place it between 1943 and March 4, 1972, so presumably the 20 foot portion was acquired during that period of time. Then going back to the memo on page 3, if that person acquired that property lawfully during that period of time, it • seems the 20 foot parcel would be both a legal lot and a legal buildable site. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that to be a legal lot and buildable it has to fall in the pre 1943 time era. Assistant City Attorney Clauson noted that Commissioner Selich is making assumptions about when the structure was built and we have not been able to establish the necessary information to reach a conclusion. The facts have not been shown to reach that conclusion. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that he read City Attorney Burnham's memo a couple of times and came to the opinion that he wasn't even sure the Commission had jurisdiction this evening. He re -read it because he was looking for a way to respect property rights, but can't find it in this situation. From a legal perspective, he cannot find for the applicant. He noted that a furtherstudy of this is needed. Commissioner Ashley stated that he respects Mr. Marsh's commitment to build quality homes and the people of the community have no ill will toward the quality of homes he builds. In this instance though, as Commissioner Ridgeway has just expressed it again, we do not have a good sound legal foundation for approving this. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley that the Commission reverse the Modifications Committee decision N.B.L.L.A. No. 96 -7, Modification No. 4495 and that the application be denied subject to the findings proposed in the Staff report. Chairman Kranzley stated that it is very clear to him that the staff and the City Attorney have made a decision and he will not support the Modifications Committee action. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 Commissioner Selich asked if the maker of the motion would consider including the Staff suggestions and that the Planning Commission direct staff to study the situation. Commissioner Kranzley asked Assistant City Attorney Clauson if it would be appropriate in this motion or better if stated separately. She replied that it would be better to make a separate motion because it is distinct from this application. Chairman Kranzley noted the suggested action and motion is the reversal of the decision made by the Modifications Committee and denying N.B.L.L.A. No. 96 -7 and Modification No. 4495. Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Gifford, Selich and Ashley Noes: None Absent: Adams Abstain: None Motion was made by Commissioner Selich that the Planning Staff further study the Lot Line Adjustment situation in Corona del Mar. Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Gifford, Selich and Ashley • Noes: None Absent: Adams Abstain: None SUBJECT: Mesa Drive Rezone (Continued Public Hearing) • A 855 To change the zoning district classification of six properties located off the south side of Mesa Drive between Birch Street and Cypress Street from Unclassified (U) to Agricultural- Residential (R -A) in order to allow the proposed deletion of the U District from the proposed Zoning Code and to establish appropriate land use and property development regulations which would allow the existing agricultural uses on the subject properties to continue. Mr. Patrick Alford noted this application was continued from the November 7, 1996 public hearing to work out differences between the proposed Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District and the Residential Equestrian or REQ District that is contained in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan adopted by the County of Orange. The Orange County Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan covers the area roughly to the northeast of the specified properties and is similar to a Specific Plan that the city adopted in 1987. Staff met with two of the three resident property owners of the subject area last month. Based on that meeting, staff is recommending a number of revisions to the proposed R -A District: • 1. Revise the land use regulations to exclude several public and semi - public land n VNI]XI Item No. 3 Continued to January 13, 1997 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 uses such as cemeteries, clubs, lodges, convalescence facilities, government offices and hospitals. 2. Reduce the side yard set backs from 6 feet to 5 feet. 3. Reduce set backs for animal exercise areas from 25 feet to 0 feet. 4. Reduce set backs for structures which house animals from 25 feet to 5 feet when the property abuts another zoning district other than the R -A district. At the request of Chairman Kranzley, staff has prepared a summary table showing the various land use and property development regulations for the post R -A District, the County's REQ District and the existing U or Unclassified District. Chairman Kranzley stated, for the record, that he listened to the tape and is fully aware of the public testimony and the comments made at the meeting on November7, 1996. Public Hearing opened with reminder from Chairman Kranzley that speakers address new items, and new issues that have not been brought up during the last month. Barbara Young, 2128 Mesa Drive, stated she met with Mr. Patrick Alford and there are only three properties involved in this issue. She stated that their concern is that they should be consistent in the zoning requirements because all of these properties are 1011 contiguous. The only thing that the property owners ask is that they conform to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Ms. Young feels that Mr. Patrick Alford has done a wonderful job in determining the differences between what the city wants, what has been drafted and what the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and the Unclassified District have. Ms. Young said not to re -think the problem. • Chairman Kranzley asked if she has a chance to read the handout. She responded that she just received it. Chairman Kranzley asked if she gets a sense that there are significant differences between what the city is doing vs. the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Ms. Young stated there are differences and that there should not be any differences. Roger Summers, 20292 Birch Street, Santa Ana Heights, stated in 1986 the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was created. Mr. Summers serves as a chairman on the County advisory committee to the Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Agency. Within that area is the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which includes a designation that is called Residential Equestrian (REQ). It p6marilyis on the street of Cypress, on the north side of Mesa Drive between Birch and Cypress, and one piece of property, a large fenced area, on the south side. That is the area that has a planned use zoning designation of REQ. He stated it has taken a long time to produce these guideline for REQ and these are the guidelines Ms. Young would like to have. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Summers about the use of the word guidelines in referring to the REQ District in the County of Orange. Is that a correct statement or is it actually an ordinance. Mr. Summers said it is part of the Zoning Code. He [us INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 continued that his opinion is they have a good document and would like to try and get their document and the Newport Beach rezone as compatible as possible. Commissioner Ashley noted that the only really glaring difference between the RA District and REQ District is that you cannot legally build two units per acre in the RA District but you can in the REQ zone because it allows 19,800 square foot lot size. What staff is proposing is that the minimum lot size be two acres. That means that he could go in under the REQ, buy one of those properties and start building two units per acre. If he bought three acres that would be six houses on that lot which would change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Summers stated that when they were dealing with this, all of the lots on Cypress were approximately 112 acre lots which are approximately 22,000 square foot lots. Ms. Young and her two neighbors live on lots that are larger than the existing lots on Cypress. Ms. Young at Commission query, stated she is supportive of the 87,000 square foot, but stated that she is trying to support the characterof the neighborhood. Charles Church, 2181 -2191 Mesa Dr., stated that he and his wife are not in favor of Amendment 855 and they prefer REQ zoning and do not want it to change. Chairman Kranzley distinguished that Mr. Church's lot is not one that is affected by the Mesa Drive rezoning change. Mr. Church's lot is across the street and is located • in the County. Ann Bath, 2161 Mesa Drive, wants the area to remain unified and to be considered REQ district. Chairman Kranzley clarified that the area on the agenda item is not REQ and is Unclassified. Roger Summers returned to the podium to make three recommendations. 1. Exotic animals not be permitted. 2. & 3 These are actually questions. When a horse permit is issued by the Planning Directorwhat is the notice procedure? 3. How would the neighbors or property owners know whether the Planning Director is going to issue a permit to either a commercial stable or allowing someone to have more than the listed number of horses here? Planning Director Temple stated the precise procedures for the director's use permit have not been fully established but it is the intent of staff to make the noticing requirements similar to a standard use permit which has a 300 foot radius notice requirement, as well as posting the property and publication in the newspaper. There will be a period of time within which concerned residents can address comments to the Planning Director before the decision is rendered. Planning Director Temple stated that it might help if she summarized the key differences and why they're present and perhaps offer a minor change. First, the Residential- AgricultureDistrict RA semantics was chosen because that is a present district in our current code that was originally proposing for deletion. There is no objection to calling it REQ if it would make people feel more comfortablewith the zoning. As shown in the chart prepared • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 by Mr. Alford, in large measure the regulations are in parallel. There are a few key differences. The City's proposal is that lots less than 10,000 square feet not be allowed to have horses. The reason is there are no lots that small and subdivisionsof less than 2 acres is not allowed. Therefore, it could be changed since there are no applicable situations present. The other two are important to distinct for the Planning Commission. The minimum lot size in the Orange County REQ District is 19,800 square feet, approximately 1/2 acre. The City's General Plan has a specific policy which does not allow subdivisions which could create additional dwelling in this particular area. That is the reason why the staff selected the 87,120 square feet or two acres per lot, to present a lot size which would not imply that anyone could subdivide any of the lots affected by the zone change. In order to lower that size to be a parallel standard, the City would have to amend the General Plan. The other is building height. The County has a common residential and commercial height of 35 feet. In Newport Beach, the standard residential height is 24 feet and staff felt that was a standard which is strongly supported in the community, and we would not suggest you increase the height to anything higher than 24 feet or 28 with a Use Permit, as permitted in most residential districts in Newport Beach. Planning Director Temple stated she hoped this would help clear up some of the confusion, but they are dealing with lots in the City of Newport Beach and adopting a zoning chapter to address specific properties in Newport Beach. They do not have any affect or impact on properties in the un- incorporated parts of Santa Ana Heights in the County • of Orange. Likewise, the County's regulation as adopted in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan have no affect in the City of Newport Beach. • Commissioner Gifford asked Planning Director Temple about the horses for commercial purposes that is not permitted in the County and it wasn't permitted in the classified. Ms. Temple stated that she believed the provision is to address two circumstances. One is the potential for stables which could be made available to persons who do not live on the property and the other would be to allow a modest amount of horse breeding for commercial purposes. Commissioner Gifford stated that it seemed that at least one resident who was speaking on behalf of some or all three properties that are being considered tonight said they wanted to keep things the same as they are. Ms. Temple stated that those provisions could be changed as could the provisions regarding exotic animals. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Ms. Young if she agreed that exotic animals should be removed from permitted right and that commercial uses should not be allowed? Ms. Young said she was not saying unequivocally no but thinks that they should consider it more and feels there should be a continuance. As far as the exotic animals, she said that the last time they had a Halloween parade they had emus, goats, boa constrictors, etc. None of the residents are bothered by that. As far as the commercial equestrian center, Ms. Young called attention to equestrian center at the fair grounds and Orchard, where they use the facilities and is very much part of their neighborhood, and does not agree to do away with it. Commissioner Ridgeway 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 emphasized to Ms. Young that now the Planning Commission is giving the three lots the right a commercial use of horses, the other people do not have it, and she is asking the City of Newport Beach to conform to their REQ. If we conform to their REQ, the City will be taking away their right to have commercial horses on their property. Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway for a continuance. Commissioner Ashley stated he was glad Planning Director Temple would not object to calling the residential agriculturedistrict REQ. He agrees that there are somethings in the document that need adjustment. Commissioner Gifford stated that she would be supportive of a continuance, and would be supportive of the R -A District. She feels having two REQ Districts, one for the County and one for the City would promote confusion. She stated her support if the essential goals could be achieved through the proposal here. She would not be supportive of the commercial use as she feels the exotic animals are not necessary. Commissioner Selich asked the staff if the properties that are in the City of Newport • Beach's sphere of influence that are zoned REQ were to be annexed to the City what zone would they come in as? Planning Director Temple answered they would be brought in as a Specific Plan District. A parallel Specific Plan has been adopted with some modifications to be consistent with general City requirements. CommissionerSelich asked if these parallels would have the REQ regulations on them. Mr. Alford stated the City has an EQ overlay which applies to specific areas. It does not include the subject property but covers property to the northeast of Mesa Drive. • Chairman Kranzley reluctantly supported the continuance, because he hears the residents and their comments that they want REQ and when specific points are brought up regarding the REQ they don't want them. Commissioner Kranzley stated that since he worked with Commissioners Selich and, Adams on the zoning code for many months, he feels that he will not support a change in the name. He stated that he does not see anything in the RA District that threatens their lifestyle, to some degree he sees things in the RA District that firmly support what they have. Commissioner Gifford stated that it might be helpful if, informally, in their analysis of this they add one more item which would be how the City's Specific Area Plan compares to the other regulations Motion on the floor for a continuance to meeting of January 9, 1997. Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Gifford, Selich and Ashley. Noes: None Absent: Adams 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up -Oral report by the Assistant Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning- none. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Outdoor Dining Permit for 3441 Via Lido, A (and B) was approved; Specialty Food Service Permit for 3441 Via Lido, Suite A (and B) was approved. Modifications for 1626 Galaxy Drive, 2551 Vista Drive, 115 Via Undine, and 216 Orchard Avenue were approved. Temporary Use of 125 Parking Spaces, Charter Memories, 3101 West Coast Highway, for a period of 90 days from December 6, 1996 was approved. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that the study of Mini - Marts in gas stations is becoming a serious proposal. He suggests that a committee be formed with Jerry King, Steve Sutherland and Planning • Commission members to study this proposal. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford made that Commissioners Kranzley, Adams and Selich form a sub - committee of the Planning Commission to study the Mini - Mart/Convenience stores in service stations and to report back in 60 days. Approved: 5 Ayes, 1 Absent. d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee is meeting regularly to finalize their report to the City Council. An all day work shop was held on November 20, 1996 to review a summary of recommendations with another meeting to be held on December 10, 1996. The primary item on the agenda is to prioritize the recommendations. The plan is to present the recommendations to the City Council in a study session the afternoon of January 20, 1997. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Ashley noted the MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE ACTIONS letter indicates that a majority vote by the Commissioners is needed to review any decision of the Modifications Committee. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood noted that the code states that one Commissioner can bring the action to the full commission to decide to review the decision. The MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE ACTIONS letter will be re- worded to eliminate confusion. • 14 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1996 Planning Director Temple reported that the applicants for the December 19, 1996 Planning Commission meeting did not agree to a delay. There will be two items on the agenda. Commissioner Adams had requested the Commissioners to reserve December 18, 1996 for the Holiday get- together. I.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g.) Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 0 15 INDEX