Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1975COMMISSIONERS A CALL N Present Motion Ayes Abstain 0 Motion Ayes Abstain CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 P.M. Date: December 18, 1975 MINUTES x x x x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning William R. Foley, Environmental Coordinator Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Senior Planner Shirley Harbeck, Secretary X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 20, X X X X X 1975, were approved as written. Commissioner X Agee abstained because he was absent from the meeting. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 4, X X X X Y 1975, were approved as written. Commissioners X X Agee and Tiernan abstained because they were absent from the meeting. Items #1 and #2 were heard concurrently because of their relationship. Item #1 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. AMENDMENT 37 from the "U" District to the "P -C" District, NO. 456 and to establish a Planned Community Development Plan and Development Standards for "Holiday . CONT. TO Harbor," and the acceptance of an environmental JAN. Location: Portion of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 800 -900 East Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast High- way, westerly of Jamboree Road, adjacent to Newport Dunes. Page 1. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T n a R i p e T < A A � Z ' Re CALL 0 0 December 18. 1975 MINUTES INDIA Zone: Unclassified Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Item #2 Request to subdivide 16.14± acres into 6 parcels for commercial development in accordance with the RESUB- DIVISION Planned Community Development Standards for NO. 504 "Holiday Harbor." CONT. TO Location: Portion of Blocks 55 and 94, JAN. 22 Irvine's Subdivision, located at 800 -900 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, westerly of Jamboree Road, adjacent to Newport Dunes. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Simpson - Steppat, Newport Beach Chairman Beckley advised that some portions of the hotel were being redesigned at the present time and consequently the hearings on Items No. 1 and No. 2 would primarily attempt to determine whether or not the concept of the project was acceptable; and, if so, the hearings would then be continued to allow for further review of the proposed project. Community Development Director Hogan advised that the staff had suggested some alternative designs for the hotel and the proposed hotel owners (Holiday Inn) agreed to submit some alternative designs for the Commission's review and considera- tion which would be available for the meeting of January 22, 1976. Mr. Hogan reviewed the staff report and the alternative land uses discussed therein; advised that the proposed development was consistent with the General Plan and any of the suggested alternate land uses would require an amendment to the General Plan; and reviewed the Page 2. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e�r.. Daramhar 1R_ 1Q7r, MINUTES traffic analysis which compared the peak hours of the various alternative land uses to the proposed project. Public hearings were opened in connection with these items. Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and presented a model of the project, pictures of the model, and a rendering of the site and surrounding area. He reviewed the proposed project as to location, net area of the various uses within the project, and percentage of land coverage. Mr. Neish pointed out that the designation of the land use was adopted by the City in 1973 on their own inititive and notat the request of The Irvine Company. He further pointed out that the bluff would be preserved and amenities would be provided such as public view points, public access walks and bicycle trails, as well as the proposed use which would cater to the general public. He advised of an analysis done by The Irvine Company. • which came to the same conclusion as that of the City Council when the General Plan was adopted in that this type of land use designation was the most appropriate for the site. Conceptual plan- ning then followed, however, s.ince there were many concerns relative to existing conditions from an environmental standpoint, The Irvine Company reviewed.the matter with the City planning staff and the environmental consultants in order that an environmental impact report could be developed which would identify the environmental constraints and guidelines to be incorporated in the develop- ment of the site plan. Several alternative site plans were prepared and reviewed which resulted in the proposed plan being presented for consider- ation. Eric Hanson, with Laventhol & Horwath, C.P.A.,, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and reviewed in detail a marketing study developed for the hotel which indicated the site would support the proposed project. Following review of the report, which was filed with the Community Development Department, Mr. Hanson answered questions of the Commission relative to emphasis on the local convention and visitors bureau that • was marketing the Newport area as a convention site; the radius surrounding Newport Beach within which people would be willing to stay and still be attracted to the Newport Beach area; the room Page 3. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 18. 1975 uncr saturation level for the Newport Beach area, both present and future, and the ability to utilize the available rooms as the supply increased; the increase in the tourist market within the next few years and the increase in demand for rooms due to increase in office and commercial businesses; and the distinction between the airport area and the Newport Center area. Commissioner Williams raised the question as to, whether or not additional people should be encouraged to come into an already crowded and congested area. Commissioner Heather questioned the nature of signs and it was pointed out that because of the sensitive nature of signs as well as the particula site; a coordinated signing program should be developed and brought back for review by the Commission through the Site Plan Review procedure. In reviewing the report, Commissioner Seely felt there was little doubt that the proposed facility • would be successful and voiced concern that the attraction oriented towards the tourist trade would create an additional impact on traffic not only during peak hours but throughout the day and especially during the summer months. Dave Neish appeared before the Commission to respond to the issue of traffic and pointed out that the trips generated by the proposed facility were taken into consideration when the detailed traffic study was made for the City and these facts were used in the development of the EIR for Holiday Harbor. Planning Commission discussed the traffic analysis for the proposed project as well as alternate uses of the land and Commissioner Agee felt that one of the critical factors was the traffic and use of the site. Dave Neish appeared before the Commission to comment on the P.M. peak hour traffic and advised that the additional traffic generated by the project would not exist for another two or three years and by that time the new Coast Highway bridge should be a reality as well as other • improvements along Coast Highway which will pro- vide a greater highway capacity. Page 4. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �C' n m ➢ m m i A P Z oO rw„ N December 18. 1975 MINUTES mvcn Planning Commission discussed the traffic pro - jections for Coast Highway and questioned whether the highway would ever be able to handle the traffic. City Engineer Nolan advised that the capacity of Coast Highway would improve in segments, project by project, and the traffic situation which improved in some areas would become worse in other area's until all the improvements were accomplished. City Traffic Engineer Darnell appeared before the Commission to comment on the "planned deficiency" of Coast Highway as adopted in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the unknown factor as to what the effect of the deficiency would be on other sections of the community. It was felt that factors such as the extension of the Corona del Mar freeway downcoast would be of benefit in terms of through traffic, however, the timing and funding factors were questionable. Those sections of Coast Highway which could be improved within • the next ten years because of conditions of. approval, dedications of improvements or right -of- way, etc. obtained through approval of various projects, are located between Dover Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and hopefully will maximize the capacity and reduce the deficiency to a free - flowing system. He also commented on the sections of Coast Highway through Corona del Mar, Mariner's Mile and West Newport. Many concerns of the Commission were discussed such as foot traffic across Coast Highway, addi- tional traffic of any kind at the present time, design of the intersections to move traffic more efficiently, and timing as to proposed widening of various sections of Coast Highway including the bridge. At this point, Planning Commission and Staff discussed conditions which could be attached to the project relative to a delay in construction until such time as the bridge was widened and traffic again reviewed. Harry Kamph, 1320 East Ocean Front, Balboa, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the . Balboa Peninsula Point Association and advised that until such time as the bridge was widened to six lanes, no project should be approved at this location. He also commented on the low occupancy Page 5. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m r Z m< Z < p P Z 3 o� relI N December 18, 1975 MINUTES rates which presently exist in the surrounding hotels and pollution in the bay. Frank Fulton, President of the Balboa Island Improvement Association appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request and commented on the adverse effects which would be created due to the increase in traffic. Frank Robinson, 1007 Nottingham Road, Westcliff, member of the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission, appeared before the Commission to comment on the precedent which may:be set by this project, the increased burden on the City with respect to traffic and the potential increase in airport traffic. He felt that the widening of the bridge was a compromise for relief of existing traffic and not the answer for increased expansion and future development along Coast Highway. Ed Nigro, General Manager of the Newporter Inn and President of the Newport- Harbor Convention and Visitors Bureau, appeared before the Commission to • comment on the existing facilities in the area and the degree to which the City may become a destin- ation and resort community. He advised that the study made by Laventhol & Horwath was done over a year ago and no longer reflects the present situation. He commented on the trend of the convention and visitors growth within the area and the resistance to efforts of providing a bureau which would encourage further business to the area In summary he advised that the industry was in a transitory period providing for rapid growth without an increase in the demand which was furthe complicated by the lack of ability to move people in and out of the area by means other than the automobile. Forrest Fulmer appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Association, and advised they would like . to see the present traffic problems at lease partially alleviated before further congestion was added. Bob Millar, President of the Little Balboa Island Property Owners Association appeared before the Commission and voiced concern with the traffic • because of the access problem to Balboa Island; the inclusion of the shops along Marine Avenue in the marketing of other commercial and residen- tial entities; and the lack of parking and overall Page 6. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Y� T m ➢ T 'm �{ „ 1K F < Z p a Z 3 Q& rAl December 18. 1975 MINUTES uweL congestion on the island. He felt there were too many unknown factors and inadequate information to warrant approval of the request, that a residen- tial development would be much better, and that the City must ask itself "do we want to be a convention and hotel city or do we want to be a residential community?" Al Auer, Vice President of The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission in rebuttal and advised they felt they were good citizens and have tried to do what the staff, Planning Commis- sion, and City Council have recommended by follow- ing the General Plan in the proposed development of the site. The development provides for public_ views and open space, makes the best use of the natural contours, and has not been overbuilt. He advised that the reason there were no other hotels on Irvine land was because they wanted to wait for the time more rooms were needed and did not feel they should be penalized for waiting until now in order to give existing hotels the opportunity to get started. They feel the project is good, that it fits the site, that it will be three years before occupancy, and by that time the concerns should be alleviated. In answer to Commissioner Seely's question as to how much of the project should be developed, Mr. Auer advised that the hotel was the primary part and certainly the other uses could be discussed, however, in their development of the site, it was felt that the improvements as proposed needed each other to make it viable. Curt Herberts, 2949 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commission and commented that the decision had to be made as to whether Newport Beach was to become a commercial town with congestion, confu- sion, tall buildings, etc., or remain the commun- ity as it now exists. At this point, Planning Commission discussed whether the matter should be continued or the public hearing closed and the implications of such an action. Motion X Commissioner Tiernan felt he had heard sufficient Aj&s X X X testimony to make a decision on the matter, there - NW X X X X fore, motion was made to close the public hearing. Motion failed. Page 7. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 18, 1975 INDEX Motion X Motion was made to continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 22, 1976. Commissioner Williams voiced concern with the procedure that the matter was set for hearing on this date, however there was knowledge that all testimony would not be heard and therefore it was predetermined that the matter would be continued. Commissioner Heather commented it was her under- standing that additional studies had been request- ed of the applicant but would not be available at this point in time and therefore the matter was to be continued for that purpose. Commissioner Seely felt the continuance was appropriate because of the recommendation in the staff report as well as the comments made by the Chairman prior to the hearings and although he may have heard enough testimony to take action on the matter at this time, the applicant should be allowed the opportunity to make a full presenta- tion and furnish the information previously requested. Commissioner Tiernan voiced his concern that no action was being taken on a matter which had been advertised for hearing with the assumption that an action would be taken at the end of the hearing and was opposed to a continuance which would tend to loose the continuity of thoughts which have been presented. Commissioner Agee advised that he failed to see what difference an alternate design would make when the general issue was whether or not this type of development was desirable for the site. He further commented that it appeared as though the Commission had no choice but to continue the matter since all the facts had not been presented, however, this procedure would be setting a pre- cedent and felt that all facts should be presented at one time in order that action could be taken on the matter at the conclusion of the hearing, without a continuance, if so desired. Commissioner Parker felt that any applicant was entitled to a full hearing and since it was the • understanding of both the applicant and the Commission that the matter would be continued, action should be taken to do so. Page 8. COMMISSIONERS m< P p t 2 3 CALL r- IL Ayes Noes Motion. All Ayes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 18, 1975 �nuex As a point of clarification relative to the con- tinuance, Community Development Director Hogan . advised that the applicant was prepared for a full public hearing at the;last meeting, however, because of the lateness of the hour, the Planning Commission continued the matter to this date. In the meantime, the applicant took into considera- tion the staff's recommendation that alternate proposals be prepared for the Commissions consider ation but were unable to prepare them in the time frame within which the continued public hearing had been established. Consequently, because of the legal aspect, in that the public hearing was continued to this date, it was the obligation to either hear the matter or continue it and since . the applicant was unable to prepare the alternate proposals as requested by.the staff, they asked that it be continued further to give them the opportunity to prepare the alternate proposals but at the same time it was felt there would be a benefit to hear those aspects of the proposal which could be considered without the alternate proposals in order that the applicant and staff could have an understanding of the Commission's and public's point of view. Staff, therefore, accepts part or all of the responsibility.for. the requested continuance. X X X X The motion to continue the matter to January 22, X X X 1976, was then voted on and carried. Planning; Commission recessed at 10:15 P.M. and reconvened at 10:25 P.M. Item #3 GENERAL Proposed revision of the land use designations for the Aeronutronic -Ford site, and resulting changes PLAN to the Land Use Element and, possibly, the AMENDMENT Residential Growth Element. (Requested by NO. 31 Aeronutronic- Ford). CONT. TO X Planning Commission continued this matter to the TA-N.8 meeting of January 8, 1976. Page 9. 0 P COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 18. 1975 MINUTES .0 nev - . WNW Items No. 4 and No. 5 were heard concurrently because of their relationship. Item #4 Consideration of Specific Area Plan No. 5 AMENDMENT N0. 458 "Mariners' Mile" and adoption of Mariners' Mile Specific Plan District. CONT. TO Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach MAR. 4 Item #5 Consideration of redesignating the southerly AMENDMENT NO. 459 portions of Lot C of Tract 919 to R -1 from C -1 -H. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach CONT. TO MAR. 4 Community Development Director Hogan briefly reviewed the purpose of the public hearings and the staff's request to consider several alter- native proposals in order that direction may be given relative to development of a plan and preparation of an environmental impact report. Staff recommended that following review of the alternative proposals and receipt of public input, the matter be continued for the purpose of making revisions as directed by the Commission and the preparation of an environmental impact report. Senior Planner Talarico appeared before the Com- mission to review this matter. He advised of two letters which had been received and distributed to the Commission subsequent to receipt of the staff report. He reviewed the Specific Area Plan and the Specific Plan District. These two documents were developed after many study sessions with the property owners in the area. He reviewed a proposal which would extend Avon Street east from Tustin Avenue to a parking lot proposed to be located on property presently owned by Cal Trans, as well as alter- native proposals which would also connect Avon Street to Coast Highway easterly of Tustin Avenue. Public hearings were opened in connection with these two items. Page 10. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH < P A Z i D* rw11 .N December 18. 1975 MINUTES auncr Clarence Herbert, 243 Ocean View, appeared before the Commission and questioned the Specific Area Plan with its acquisition and funding program. He felt that the Specific Area District should be finished before any new programs were discussed and did not recall discussion of parking other than the incentive program. Community Development Director Hogan explained that the two documents were developed simultan- eously, one being the physical development for such things as acquisition of property for parking, widening of streets, etc. which would require expenditure of public funds and the other being the regulations for development of private pro - perty and the zoning designation. Ed Riddle, 227 Ocean View, appeared before the Commission to comment on the parking situation and felt that the parking lots to be acquired by the City were primarily for the uses on the south side of Coast Highway who could not provide park- • ing on their own property and was opposed to spending money for such parking. For background information, Senior Planner Talarico appeared before the Commission and advised that a study was made in March, 1970 of existing land uses and their relationship to the existing zoning for required parking. The study indicated there was a deficiency of 170 off- street parking spaces in the area. In addition, 131 on- street parking spaces would be eliminated with the widening of Coast Highway. As a result of the above, staff was directed to investigate the possibility of creating parking lots in the area which would provide the needed parking. In answer to the question of allowing five -story buildings within the district, Mr. Talarico advised that at one time the plan was to allow a height of up to 50 feet, however, that has been changed to the height limit which is currently existing in the area. The implication of the City's responsibility to acquire and fund the parking lot, should the plan • be adopted, was discussed and it was pointed out that the City would work towards implementation of whatever plan was approved, however, if it was determined at a later date that the Ci.ty would not be able to implement such a plan because of Page 11. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH MINUTES onGrAlI December 18. 1975 .....ff,. problems with acquisition, funding, etc., the plan could be revised to eliminate the parking lot. Don Williams, 2936 Cliff Drive, member of the Executive Committee of the Newport Heights Associa- tion, appeared before the Commission to comment on the height limit. He felt that the maximum height should be 26 feet and any provisions which would allow buildings to exceed that height should not be permitted. He presented pictures indicating the effect of allowing structures to exceed the 26 foot height limit and a petition with approxi- mately 300 signatures (which was subsequently returned to Mr. Williams) in opposition to any building which would exceed the 26 foot height limit in the Mariners Mile Area from the Arches bridge to and including the Balboa Bay Club. Curt Herberts, 2949 Cliff Drive, appeared before the.Commission to comment on the plan and felt there would be many conflicts; that marine uses could not compete with restaurant uses; that the maximum height limit should be 26 feet; opposed • City subsidized parking lots created for special interests and felt that they would.not be used as intended. At this point, Community Development Director Hogan reviewed the procedure for processing variance and use permit requests and the criteria which must be met in order to approve` requests which exceed the height limit of 26 feet to a maximum of 35 feet. Virginia Herberts, 2949 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to any height limit in excess of 26 feet. Orin Ridell, 2940 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commission and advised that the 26 foot height Limit would preserve the view of both the bay and the ocean from Cliff Drive and the adjacent public park. Ed Spiker, 2932 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to exceeding a height limit of 26 feet. . D. T. Daniels, 2071 Coast Highway, with Ardell Investment Company, appeared before the Commission in favor of the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District as presently allowed by the Municipal Code. Page 12.' COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m 9 December 18, 1975 MINUTES INDEX Iva Richardson appeared before the Commission and stated she was the owner of property fronting on Coast Highway which would be most affected by plans to extend Avon Street through to Coast Highway. She felt that if one of the alternate plans were adopted, funds should be raised to purchase the property immediately because of the hardship which would be created in preventing any interim develop- ment and use of the land. She also questioned the height limit to be established adjacent to the bluffs and felt that a higher limit could be established without affecting views from Cliff Drive. Mr. Block, who is constructing a house on Avon, appeared before the Commission and suggested an alternative plan which would provide access to the parking lot from Cliff Drive, cul -de -sac Ocean View and Tustin Avenues, and extend Avon through to Coast Highway. This plan would then separate the residential area from the commercial area and eliminate the heavy through traffic on Tustin Avenue. • Vin Jorgenson, 1533 Antigua Way, appeared before the Commission and advised he felt that the property owners should have another meeting to discuss the new alternatives being proposed as this was a new concept. He emphasized the need for more parking on the north side of Coast High- way not only for the benefit of the businesses located on the south side but also those located on the north side as well. He felt that the provisions for added parking would create an incentive for redevelopment and help to clean up the area. Susan Cuse, 2400 W. Coast Highway, concurred with Mr. Jorgenson and felt another meeting should be held in connection with the new concept being presented relative to the extension of Avon Avenue. Community Development Director Hogan again review- ed the alternative plans and advised that the question at this time was whether or not they should be explored in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. • Page 13. COMMISSIONERS M *on All Ayes Motion A* Ayes N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. December 18. 1975 MINUTES unev Planning Commission discussed the cost of the various alternatives and it was pointed out that the value of the land acquisition for the parking lot was not necessarily the actual cost because of various methods of funding and acquisition such as dedication of right -of -way for streets, etc. The possibility of extending Avon Street through the "Brown" property was discussed and it was pointed out that until a more complete traffic study had been made, the actual location of the extension and intersection with Coast Highway could not be determined. Chairman Beckley voiced concern with the intensity of uses and felt that if parking was to be covered, as in the case of automobile dealerships, it shoul be counted as buildable area. He also voiced concern with the inclusion of hotels as an accept- able use and their effect on traffic and the support systems. He also felt that the City had an obligation. to preserve the view from the bluffs especially since the City had purchased the church property and two adjacent lots for a public park. X Motion was made that these two agenda items be. continued to the meeting of March 4, 1976 .and the staff be directed to proceed with the development of an environmental impact report and that con -. sideration be given to the concerns of the Commission as indicated in this portion of the public hearing, as well as alternative plan #3 relative to the extension of Avon Avenue through to Coast Highway. Item #6 Consideration of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, whereby Section AMENDMENT NO. 460 20.08.080 would be amended to include senior citizen housing facilities as an allowable use in CONT. TO any district, subject to the securing of a Use JAN. 8 Permit in each case. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. Page 14. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m F < Z R� CALL m Motion All Ayes is • MINUTES December 18 1975 EX .ND Item #7 Request to subdivide 0.8 acres into 6 numbered TENTATIVE lots for residential development and one lettered MAP lot for ingress and egress to two of the residen - tial lots. TRACT 9132 Location: Portion of Lot 1, Tract 464, and a CONT. TO portion of an abandoned street, JAN. 8 located at 470 Westminster Avenue, on the southeasterly side of West- minster Avenue between Clay Street and Broad Street in Newport Heights. Zone: R -1 Applicant: Grant Warmington Builders, Irvine Owner: John F. Vogel, Newport Beach X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. Item #8 Request to permit the enclosure of a roofed porch VARIANCE on an existing single family dwelling which 1054 exceeds the permitted floor area in the R -1.5 District. The existing structure is nonconforming CONT. TO since it encroaches one foot into the required 5 foot front yard setback along South Bayfront and JAN. 8 approximately one foot into the required 3 foot side yard adjacent to The Grand Canal. Other non- conforming features of the existing single family dwelling include a second floor balcony that encroaches to the side property line adjacent to The Grand Canal (where the Ordinance requires a 3 foot side yard) and a roof overhang that encroache to within 6 inches of the rear property line (wher the Ordinance requires a 2 foot 6 inch setback from the rear property line). Location: Lot 1, Block 1, Section 5, Balboa Isle, located at 1500 South Bay Front, on the northeasterly corner of South Bay Front and The Grand Canal on Balboa Island. Zone: R -1.5 Applicant: Tozier & Abbott, A.I.A., Claremont Page 15. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALL m '�.c R� w Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes 0 Motion All Ayes MINUTES December 18, 1975 IA VCA Owner: Charles T. Richardson, Balboa Island X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. Item #9 Request to permit the establishment of a.restau- USE rant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages PERMIT and live entertainment in an existing building in "Lido Village." CONT. TO Location: Portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 1177, JAN. 8 located at 3511 and 3513 Via Oport% on the southeasterly corner of Via Oporto and Central Avenue in "Lido Village." Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Donald M. Koll, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. Item #10 Request to waive a portion or all of the required VARIANCE parking spaces in conjunction with a proposed 105 restaurant facility in "Lido Village." Parking for the proposed development will be located in CONT. TO the existing "Lido Village" parking structure. A3 N. 8 Location: Portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 1117, located at 3511 and 3513 Via Oporto on the southeasterly corner of Via Oporto and Central Avenue in "Lido Village." Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Donald M. Koll, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. Page 16. COMMISSIONERS I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Rt CALL Motion All Ayes 0 Motion All Ayes 9 MINUTES December 18. 1975 Item #11 Request to permit interior and exterior alteration USE (i.e. new bathroom facilities, new patio roof and fences, etc.) on an existing nonconforming "take- out" and "outdoor" restaurant facility in "Newport PERMIT Shores." CONT. T.0 J'N. 8 Location: Lots 3 and 4, Block 8, Colony Tract Addition, located at 6800 West Coast Highway, on the. northwesterly corner of Orange Street and West Coast Highway in "Newport Shores." Zone: Specific Plan No. 4 Applicant: Krano's, Newport Beach Owner: Mary Cusumano, Costa Mesa X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. Item #12 Request to permit the construction of a.restaurant USE facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages in "Koll PERMIT Center Newport." 1777 Location: Portion of Lot 8, Tract 7953, CONT. TO located at 4601 Von Karman Avenue, JAN. 8 on the northerly corner of Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street in "Retail and Service Site No. 1" of "Koll Center Newport." Zone: P -C Applicant: Robert Altevers & Co., Newport Beach Owner: JPH Enterprises, John P. Hooten, Newport Beach X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. Page 17. COMMISSIONERS CITY .OF NEWPORT BEACH may i t R «, w December 18, 1975. ion A Ayes Motion All Ayes • MINUTES INUCA Item #13 Request to.create four parcels of land for RESUB- commercial development. DIVISION NO. 506 Location: Lots 8 and 9, Tract No. 7953, located at 4601 Von Karman Avenue, CO_NT_TO on the northwesterly side of Von JAI. 8 Karman Avenue between Birch Street and Campus Drive in "Retail and Service Site No. 1" of "Koll Center Newport." Zone: P -C Applicant: John P. Hooten, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Valley Consultants, Inc., Huntington Beach X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1976. X There being no further business,.Planning Commission adjourned the meeting to January 8,.' 1976. Time: 12:10 A.M. ?JAMES M. PARKER, Secretary nning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 18.