Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1985COM MISSIONERS x A c O n f = c v v m zc m y,* z M a D z r I c= w O t 0 0 0 M m o m s * M Z s z a:M m REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: March 7, 1985 itv Of t Beach PRESENT x x x x K K K All Commissioners Present EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary * t x Minutes of February 21, 1985 Moo x Motion was made for approval of the revised Minutes of All Ayes the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1985, which MOTION CARRIED. x • a Request for Continuance Staff recommended that Agenda Item No. 2, Resubdivision No. 798, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. All Ayes I xjxjx Ix I M985onwhich MOTION CARRIEDnne *Item No. 2 to April 4, A. Site Plan Review No. 37 (Continued Discussion) Request to permit the construction of a retail commercial building and related off - street parking spaces in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. I MINUTES COMMISSIONERSI March 7, 1985 MINUTES Of 3017 Beach Public Request to permit a portion of the required commercial parking spaces to be tandem spaces where, the zoning Code requires each parking space to be independently accessible. AND C. Resubdivision No. 799 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide three existing lots and a portion of 'a vacated alley so as to eliminate interior property lines and create a single building site for retail commercial and off- street parking purposes, on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Tract No. 1133 -, and a portion of a vacated alley located at • 150 Riverside Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Senator D.G. Anderson, Honolulu, Hawaii OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Lancor Architects, Del Mar X C O X - v 9 m z c m m z m a v a P e= N O 9 0 0 0 0 M m O m Z+ m Z = y a T m Of 3017 Beach Public Request to permit a portion of the required commercial parking spaces to be tandem spaces where, the zoning Code requires each parking space to be independently accessible. AND C. Resubdivision No. 799 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide three existing lots and a portion of 'a vacated alley so as to eliminate interior property lines and create a single building site for retail commercial and off- street parking purposes, on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Tract No. 1133 -, and a portion of a vacated alley located at • 150 Riverside Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Senator D.G. Anderson, Honolulu, Hawaii OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Lancor Architects, Del Mar INDEX t'd to .4.1985 'd to Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the project by stating that the development rights existing on the subject property came about as a result of action taken at the April 19, 1984, Planning Commission meeting and action taken by.City Council, May 29, 1984, when the City established an overall intensity of .8 times the buildable area development to be shared between the subject site and the 2901 West Coast Highway project. He cited that at the time the West Coast Highway project was originally before the Commission, that the staff had considered the possibility of zeroing out development on this particular piece of property. Mr. Hewicker advised that there is a provision in the Mariner's Mile • Specific Area Plan whereby development rights can be transferred from one site to another when under the same ownership. In this particular case, Mr. Hewicker stated, it was felt that there should be some 2 INDEX t'd to .4.1985 'd to "MISSIONLK5 March 7, 1985 A A C O O a S - - C m p y m z c z C 2 N 0 3 0 0 Z Z a a T m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 J i l l I INDEX development rights left on the subject property in the event that at some future date there might be the desire of the property owner to develop the property, particularly in conjunction with a parking structure or in conjunction with the property adjoining to the east. Mr. Hewicker cited that the .8 times buildable area permits a development of 6,740 square feet on the subject parcel. He said that this is a reduction from a permitted density under the Specific Area Plan which would have permitted 9,100 square feet of floor area, or .5 times buildable area that the site normally would have permitted, had the Planning Commission and City Council taken no action on the 2901 West Coast Highway property. Mr. Hewicker stated that the subject project is designed to take advantage of the 6,740 square feet of floor area that was permitted to be constructed on the property. He commented that the applicant has • designed the project so as to accommodate both the parking spaces that would be required for the 2901 West Coast Highway development and the new parking spaces that would be required for the development that is proposed on this particular building site. Mr. Hewicker said that in order to accommodate both parcels, the applicant proposed the use of tandem parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker explained that two months ago, the Modification Committee approved a modification that allowed the subject tandem parking spaces, not realizing at the time that it would reflect the Site Plan Review before the Commission. Mr. Hewicker further explained that staff was of the opinion that all of the development had been approved on both parcels under the original use Permit. Mr. Hewicker advised that in the event that the tandem parking spaces are deleted and the modification denied, there would be 14 parking spaces eliminated from this development, and if that would be the case, then the applicant still would have the option to have two ways to accomplish these proposals: he could either reduce the daytime occupancy of the restaurant he is proposing to construct on West Coast Highway or reduce the on -site development in conjunction with the reduction • of the 14 parking spaces. With respect to the restaurant and private club uses on West Coast Highway, Mr. Hewicker explained that parking is calculated at a ratio of 1 parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area, which would reduce the occupancy of the 3 March 7, 1985 MINUTES Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planning Commission's options are that the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan contains language of what can be done with respect to the Site Plan Review. He said that if the Commission makes a finding that the the project complies with the design standards, zoning standards, etc., that are set forth in the Specific Area Plan, then the Planning Commission would be required to approve the project; if there are certain aspects of the project which the Commission does not care for and does not feel would necessarily meet the intent of the Plan, then the Planning Commission would have the authority to require modifications of the Plan. Mr. Hewicker referred to a letter to Mr. Robert Clark, President of the Newport Heights Association, from Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, dated March 5, 1985, explaining what distinguishes this particular project 4 c O 2 y 9 r 7 m z c m „� z = V O K O O z 2 T City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX restaurant during the daytime by 560 square feet. Mr. Hewicker cited that if the applicant would reduce the development on the subject property, the parking would be calculated on the basis of 1 space for each 250 square feet of floor area, which would reduce the project from 6,740 square feet to 3,240 square feet. He stated that this would be a reduction of 528 from the development rights that were permitted by the City when the 2901 West Coast Highway project was approved last year and it would be a 658 reduction from the development rights that would normally have been allowed to build under the .5 times buildable area permitted under the Mariners Mile Specific Area Plan. Mr. Hewicker explained that a 3,500 square foot reduction would leave the applicant with a floor area ratio of .18 times buildable area. Mr. Hewicker cited that to his knowledge, no other development that the City has considered has had that much development taken away from a particular project. • Mr. Hewicker stated that there is a way that the West Coast Highway project and the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street projects can be phased so that the construction can be started on the West Coast Highway site: parking can be accommodated on the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street site until construction of the parking structure is completed on the West Coast Highway project, and the vehicles of the construction workers can then be moved to the West Coast Highway site, leaving the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street property available for development. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planning Commission's options are that the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan contains language of what can be done with respect to the Site Plan Review. He said that if the Commission makes a finding that the the project complies with the design standards, zoning standards, etc., that are set forth in the Specific Area Plan, then the Planning Commission would be required to approve the project; if there are certain aspects of the project which the Commission does not care for and does not feel would necessarily meet the intent of the Plan, then the Planning Commission would have the authority to require modifications of the Plan. Mr. Hewicker referred to a letter to Mr. Robert Clark, President of the Newport Heights Association, from Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, dated March 5, 1985, explaining what distinguishes this particular project 4 MMI5N(_)NLK5 March 7, 1985 x x c o ' x . _ C y m z c m z c z m o s o 0 M z m> M m A 2 City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX is I 1 from the project on West Coast Highway, both from the standpoint of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker commented that a letter from Mr. Clarence Herbert, 243 Ocean View Avenue, Newport Beach, had been received. Commissioner Person referred to Mr. Hewicker's remark indicating that the City established development rights of .8 times the buildable area when combining the two building sites, and that it was his opinion that action taken previously was a limit on development of no more than .8 rather than development rights. Mr. Hewicker explained that previous action taken by the Planning Commission and City Council reduced the allowable development of 9,100 square feet or .5 times buildable area to 6,740 square feet or .37 times buildable area on the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street site, and that when the West Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue /Avon Street projects are combined, there would be .8 times buildable permitted. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Hewicker replied that there is a possibility that the underground parking could be enlarged in order to avoid the tandem parking. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Joe Lancor, Architect, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lancor stated that the proposed project is a retail commercial development that is in conformance with Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan. Mr. Lancor explained that there will be tandem parking used solely by valets for the purpose of restaurant employee parking in the small subterranean area garage. Mr. Lancor stated that the West Coast Highway project has a 15 months construction time and the proposed project has a 5 months construction time, but would not begin until the West Coast Highway project would be nearing completion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Lancor replied that in the event the proposed modification and off -site tandem parking would be denied, then the applicant would try to revise the plans in conjunction with an acceptable parking area. Mr. Lancor further stated that the applicant would also attempt to provide additional parking on the West Coast Highway site. Commissioner Person commented that he 5 COMMISSIONERSI March 7, 1985 MINUTES INDEX does not believe that tandem parking is appropriate, that the valets should not be crossing West Coast Highway, and that restaurant employees generally work according to the volume of business. Mr. Lancor replied that the valet will walk with the employee across West Coast Highway as the employee leaves the restaurant, and the valet will assist the employee in the employee tandem parking area. He also indicated that no automobiles would be transferred by valets from the 2901 West Coast Highway property to the off -site parking lot on Riverside Avenue. A A Chairman Winburn asked Mr. Lancor where the additional a O O 26 automobiles for the 2901 West Coast Highway project x - H 9 r 7 M z c m > z c z w o 9 0 0 City of Newport Beach z Highway site? Mr.Lancor replied that the applicant INDEX does not believe that tandem parking is appropriate, that the valets should not be crossing West Coast Highway, and that restaurant employees generally work according to the volume of business. Mr. Lancor replied that the valet will walk with the employee across West Coast Highway as the employee leaves the restaurant, and the valet will assist the employee in the employee tandem parking area. He also indicated that no automobiles would be transferred by valets from the 2901 West Coast Highway property to the off -site parking lot on Riverside Avenue. Commissioner Turner queried Mr. Lancor, that if the ingress /egress ramp coming from the alley could be expanded, is it possible to provide additional underground parking instead of tandem parking? Mr. Lancor replied that a split -level design concept could be designed to provide more parking spaces. Mr. Lancor explained that the subterranean area is presently designed to a four foot depth. Mr. Lancor explained to Commissioner Turner that the area could be expanded across the entire property if necessary. Mr. Lancor stated that the ,applicant is in accordance with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" of Site Plan Review No. 37 and Resubdivision No. 799. Mr. Robert Clark, 215 Tustin Avenue, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark commented that the .Homeowner's Association does not oppose development, • however the Homeowner's Association does have concerns regarding the traffic impact in the area. Mr. Clark stated that there is a possibility that after a period of time that the valet /tandem parking proposal would 21 Chairman Winburn asked Mr. Lancor where the additional 26 automobiles for the 2901 West Coast Highway project will be parking that were originally proposed for the Riverside Avenue parking site, and if it would be feasible to allow more parking spaces at the West Coast Highway site? Mr.Lancor replied that the applicant plans to expand the subterranean parking garage on the West Coast Highway site, and that as soon as the applicant redesigns the storm drain in the subterranean garage area in accordance with the Public Works Department, that the applicant will be able to ascertain the precise number of parking spaces available. Commissioner Turner queried Mr. Lancor, that if the ingress /egress ramp coming from the alley could be expanded, is it possible to provide additional underground parking instead of tandem parking? Mr. Lancor replied that a split -level design concept could be designed to provide more parking spaces. Mr. Lancor explained that the subterranean area is presently designed to a four foot depth. Mr. Lancor explained to Commissioner Turner that the area could be expanded across the entire property if necessary. Mr. Lancor stated that the ,applicant is in accordance with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" of Site Plan Review No. 37 and Resubdivision No. 799. Mr. Robert Clark, 215 Tustin Avenue, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark commented that the .Homeowner's Association does not oppose development, • however the Homeowner's Association does have concerns regarding the traffic impact in the area. Mr. Clark stated that there is a possibility that after a period of time that the valet /tandem parking proposal would 21 COMMISSIONERS x x Co 01 f n, 2 N a; O o M = A = M m 9 March 7, 1985 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL ROLL CALL - INDEX not be effective and would not be practical. Mr. Clark further stated that the underground parking area could become a safety hazard area, especially for women and children, and that .there are many children riding bicyles and pedestrians passing by the proposed garage site. In response to a question posed by Mr. Clark regarding the use permit requiring marine related uses and how this requirement can be enforced, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant will be required to record a Covenant requiring 40% occupancy for marine related uses which would be controlled by self - policing, and by the City, and that if there, is a violation, then a portion of the remaining 60% of the floor area will have to go unoccupied. Chairman Winburn acknowledged Mr. Clark's concern for view corridors. Mr. Rob Craig, 418 Snug Harbor, representing the Cliff Haven Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Planning Commission, in opposition to commercial development on the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street site. Mr. Craig commented that the homeowners approved the original project on West Coast Highway and the parking site at Riverside Avenue /Avon Street, however because of the traffic impact of the area the homeowners are not supporting the proposed project and the proposed parking area. Mr. Craig recommended that the West Coast Highway project be completed before the proposed project be approved. Mr. Craig further cited that there are safety concerns regarding.the bicycle lanes in the area which are currently heavily used. Mr. Clarence Herbert, 243 Ocean View Avenue, appeared . before the Planning Commission, referring to his letter to the Planning Commission dated February 28, 1985, stating his opposition to the retail commercial building and parking at Riverside Avenue /Avon Street. Mr. Herbert inquired if the applicant has the authority to take over half of the adjacent alley that appears to be a public right -of -way. Mr. Hewicker informed Mr. Herbert that the alley was vacated by the City in 1954, and since that time half of the alley has been used by Rosan and half of the alley by other development. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, informed Mr. Herbert that the alley is not considered a public right -of -way. Mr. Hewicker explained to Mr. Herbert that because the proposed project is less than .5 times buildable area that an incentive use would not be applicable. 7 WAISSIONER5I March 7, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL T I I I INDEX Ms. Karen Harrington, 2916 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project because the subterranean parking structure could become a safety factor, create an urban atmosphere, and a possibility of greater density of development in the area. Ms. Margaret Motta, 2700 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project because of the safety factor, and that the commercial site will become a destination point in the congested West Coast Highway area. Ms. Marian Rail, 426 San Bernardino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project. Ms. Rail stated that the valet service for employees would not be workable because the employees do not come and go at the same time, that the employees do not want to have their automobiles "locked" in the tandem parking area, that the valets would be crossing • a six -lane highway, and that there would not be enough parking. for the established retail shops and the proposed commercial project. Mr. Don Williams, 2936 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating he opposed the proposed project because of the 35 foot height of the approved structure and the fact that the view corridor at the 2901 West Coast Highway project will be blocked by a parking lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Hewicker stated that the Rosan project and projects east and west of the Rosan property have been permitted to maintain building heights of 35 feet. Mr. Bruce Bradley, 2400 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project because of the traffic and the restricting of parking in the area. Mrs. Vicki Ziesche, 2401 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposed to the proposed project because of the increase in traffic along Cliff Drive and Riverside Avenue. Mr. Marco Baljeu, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposed to the proposed project because of the heavy traffic in the West Coast Highway area. K X x c o T 9 T _ M O C O = p O City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL T I I I INDEX Ms. Karen Harrington, 2916 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project because the subterranean parking structure could become a safety factor, create an urban atmosphere, and a possibility of greater density of development in the area. Ms. Margaret Motta, 2700 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project because of the safety factor, and that the commercial site will become a destination point in the congested West Coast Highway area. Ms. Marian Rail, 426 San Bernardino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project. Ms. Rail stated that the valet service for employees would not be workable because the employees do not come and go at the same time, that the employees do not want to have their automobiles "locked" in the tandem parking area, that the valets would be crossing • a six -lane highway, and that there would not be enough parking. for the established retail shops and the proposed commercial project. Mr. Don Williams, 2936 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating he opposed the proposed project because of the 35 foot height of the approved structure and the fact that the view corridor at the 2901 West Coast Highway project will be blocked by a parking lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Hewicker stated that the Rosan project and projects east and west of the Rosan property have been permitted to maintain building heights of 35 feet. Mr. Bruce Bradley, 2400 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project because of the traffic and the restricting of parking in the area. Mrs. Vicki Ziesche, 2401 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposed to the proposed project because of the increase in traffic along Cliff Drive and Riverside Avenue. Mr. Marco Baljeu, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposed to the proposed project because of the heavy traffic in the West Coast Highway area. K CONWISSIONERSI March 7, 1985 MINUTES INDEX Mr. Roger Schwenk, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposed to the proposed project because of the current lack of parking for existing retail businesses and that more parking will be needed for the proposed retail businesses; questions the control of the 408 marine related useage in the area; and what constitutes an amended use permit? Chairman Winburn advised Mr. Schwenk that the Planning Commission is aware of the parking problems in the area, that the Commission is concerned about the encroachment of employees and customer automobiles parked in residential areas, and that if a two hour parking limitation would be created on the residential streets, then the residents would not be able to park additional automobiles in the street. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the requirements for 408 incentive uses is derived from the City's Local Coastal Plan. She explained that • the Plan requires that general purpose nature uses such as general retail, general office, and general industrial provide 408 coastal dependent uses as incentive uses, and that under the Local Coastal Plan,' restaurants are considered visitor service uses and excluded from the calculated 40 %. Commissioner Goff commented that he believes that Mr. c O � Schwenk was referring to staff's opinion referred to in E x the staff report, that an expansion of the garage on 9> v m the West Coast Highway site will not require an z c C m a amendment to Use Permit No. 3086. Mr. Hewicker stated C Z 0 p C M > 0 0 City of Newport Beach s a to Mr. Clark, dated March 5, 1985, explaining that the INDEX Mr. Roger Schwenk, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposed to the proposed project because of the current lack of parking for existing retail businesses and that more parking will be needed for the proposed retail businesses; questions the control of the 408 marine related useage in the area; and what constitutes an amended use permit? Chairman Winburn advised Mr. Schwenk that the Planning Commission is aware of the parking problems in the area, that the Commission is concerned about the encroachment of employees and customer automobiles parked in residential areas, and that if a two hour parking limitation would be created on the residential streets, then the residents would not be able to park additional automobiles in the street. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the requirements for 408 incentive uses is derived from the City's Local Coastal Plan. She explained that • the Plan requires that general purpose nature uses such as general retail, general office, and general industrial provide 408 coastal dependent uses as incentive uses, and that under the Local Coastal Plan,' restaurants are considered visitor service uses and excluded from the calculated 40 %. 0 Commissioner Goff commented that he believes that Mr. Schwenk was referring to staff's opinion referred to in the staff report, that an expansion of the garage on the West Coast Highway site will not require an amendment to Use Permit No. 3086. Mr. Hewicker stated that Mr. Burnham responded to this matter in his letter to Mr. Clark, dated March 5, 1985, explaining that the use permit was for the development on West Coast Highway which had an off -site parking agreement that stated that a portion of the required parking spaces would be on the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street site, and that there was no development proposed for the property at that time. He said that there was an overall intensity established for the overall development. Mr. Hewicker further stated that the development of the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street project is permitted under the Site Plan Review in Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan and does not require a use permit. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the alternate parking arrangement on the 2901 West Coast Highway site in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3086. 0 COAAMISSIONERS1 March 7, 1985 MINUTES INDEX Ms. Dana Myers, Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating that the narrow alley should be widened because the alley is used as a fire lane for the homes in the area and that valets and the public will be parking automobiles in the alley. Ms. Aaron Hutton, 525 Aliso Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, inquiring what the current bicycle traffic is in the area. Mr. Webb replied that between 400 to 600 bicycles travel through the Arches area, and between 350 to 400 bicycles in the Riverside Avenue area. Mr. Robert Clark appeared before the Planning Commission again by stating that he believes that the problem of 26 parking spaces included in the alternate plan provided on the West Coast Highway project needs to be resolved. Mr. Clark informed .Commissioner Person that the • Homeowner's Association has no opinion regarding the one -way traffic along Avon Street, easterly to Tustin Avenue and south on west Coast Highway, but that the issue will need to be discussed with the Ad -Hoc Committee. Mr. Clark replied to Commissioner Person's inquiry that it is his opinion that the parking lot behind Mariner's Mile is not used effectively. The public hearing was closed at this time. �x Chairman Winburn asked Mr. Burnham what the Planning c o � Commission's discretionary power is regarding the Site x Plan Review in the Mariner's Mile area. Mr. Burnham _ replied that the Site Plan Review provisions for z c C m m = Mariner's Mile are vague, however the Site Plan Review C z M a= 0 u C o 0 City Newport Beach of a a discretion that the development is sited, located and INDEX Ms. Dana Myers, Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating that the narrow alley should be widened because the alley is used as a fire lane for the homes in the area and that valets and the public will be parking automobiles in the alley. Ms. Aaron Hutton, 525 Aliso Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, inquiring what the current bicycle traffic is in the area. Mr. Webb replied that between 400 to 600 bicycles travel through the Arches area, and between 350 to 400 bicycles in the Riverside Avenue area. Mr. Robert Clark appeared before the Planning Commission again by stating that he believes that the problem of 26 parking spaces included in the alternate plan provided on the West Coast Highway project needs to be resolved. Mr. Clark informed .Commissioner Person that the • Homeowner's Association has no opinion regarding the one -way traffic along Avon Street, easterly to Tustin Avenue and south on west Coast Highway, but that the issue will need to be discussed with the Ad -Hoc Committee. Mr. Clark replied to Commissioner Person's inquiry that it is his opinion that the parking lot behind Mariner's Mile is not used effectively. The public hearing was closed at this time. 10 Chairman Winburn asked Mr. Burnham what the Planning Commission's discretionary power is regarding the Site Plan Review in the Mariner's Mile area. Mr. Burnham replied that the Site Plan Review provisions for Mariner's Mile are vague, however the Site Plan Review process is intended to give the Planning Commission discretion that the development is sited, located and constructed so that it is not detrimental to the neighborhood. He said that the standards under Site Plan Review appear to relate solely to the structure on the site, the access to the structure, the relationship of the particular structure to be built to the other structures in the area, and propriety of grading. He commented that nothing in the Site Plan Review gives the Planning Commission the power to refuse development, the power would have to be implied from sections in the Site Plan Review that say that • development shall be permitted only if it is harmonious, does not adversely impact property values and they are more intended to insure that the design is 10 COAAAAISSIONERSI March 7, 1985 MINUTES appropriate for the site and for the area, then intended to give you discretions to deny development. Mr. Burnham further stated that in accordance with the Ordinance, if the Planning Commission does have discretion to deny development that it would have to be based upon substantial evidence in the record that it is not consistent with the General Plan policies and objectives set forth in the Land Use Element and in the Specific Area Plan for the area, and that evidence has to be significant to be real fact that the Commission has heard or that was contained in the staff report that would establish in the Planning Commission's mind that this development would preclude attainment of this objective. Commissioner Person inquired if the parking layout utilizing tandem spaces be part of the site plan? Mr. Burnham replied yes. Commissioner Person asked if the modification regarding tandem spaces were denied , then the Planning Commission would be looking at a Site Plan which included the use of tandem spaces? Mr. Burnham stated that if the modification were denied, then the tandem parking would be precluded, and that would require the proponent of the project to come back with revised plans. Mr. Burnham stated that the purpose of the parking layout is to be designed in a manner that best eliminates impact on traffic and insures that the access of the project will be safe to the extent that if a change is required, it may require the developer to bring back a modified plan for review. Mr. Hewicker explained that if the Commission denied the modification and granted the Site Plan Review, the applicant could reduce the project by 3,500 square feet of floor area or reduce the West Coast Highway daytime operation by 560 square feet of floor area, or if the subterranean parking would be expanded then the applicant would have to return for Planning Commission approval. Mr. Burnham cited that the Planning Commission functions within the laws approved by the City Council. He stated that the Mariner's Mile Site Plan Ordinance was adopted after considerable public input and comment • regarding the Specific Area Plan. 11 xx c O � x _ p r y z c C m ,� Z z C 2 A 0 O L O ' O m = a = City of Newport Beach appropriate for the site and for the area, then intended to give you discretions to deny development. Mr. Burnham further stated that in accordance with the Ordinance, if the Planning Commission does have discretion to deny development that it would have to be based upon substantial evidence in the record that it is not consistent with the General Plan policies and objectives set forth in the Land Use Element and in the Specific Area Plan for the area, and that evidence has to be significant to be real fact that the Commission has heard or that was contained in the staff report that would establish in the Planning Commission's mind that this development would preclude attainment of this objective. Commissioner Person inquired if the parking layout utilizing tandem spaces be part of the site plan? Mr. Burnham replied yes. Commissioner Person asked if the modification regarding tandem spaces were denied , then the Planning Commission would be looking at a Site Plan which included the use of tandem spaces? Mr. Burnham stated that if the modification were denied, then the tandem parking would be precluded, and that would require the proponent of the project to come back with revised plans. Mr. Burnham stated that the purpose of the parking layout is to be designed in a manner that best eliminates impact on traffic and insures that the access of the project will be safe to the extent that if a change is required, it may require the developer to bring back a modified plan for review. Mr. Hewicker explained that if the Commission denied the modification and granted the Site Plan Review, the applicant could reduce the project by 3,500 square feet of floor area or reduce the West Coast Highway daytime operation by 560 square feet of floor area, or if the subterranean parking would be expanded then the applicant would have to return for Planning Commission approval. Mr. Burnham cited that the Planning Commission functions within the laws approved by the City Council. He stated that the Mariner's Mile Site Plan Ordinance was adopted after considerable public input and comment • regarding the Specific Area Plan. 11 COMMISSIONERS c O s 9 r C m T 4 m z c z z N o r O O 9 T p March 7, 1985 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL ROLL - INDEX Chairman Winburn stated that she was one of the Commissioners that did not attend the April 19, 1984, Planning Commission meeting that approved Use Permit No. 3086 that combined the two projects at .8 times buildable area; however, since that time she has reviewed the project thoroughly and even though there was a surface parking lot previously mentioned, there was never a mention of the subterranean parking on the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street site. Chairman Winburn commented that the proposed access of the alley and Riverside Avenue is an impacted area, and asked if there could be a more suitable access? Mr. Hewicker stated that property on the opposite side of the alley consists of parking lot aisles, parking spaces or landscaping, and that Council policy prohibits access from the street when there is, property that abuts an alley. It may be possible to take access to Avon Street or Riverside Avenue, but in order to do that the applicant would have to obtain the approval of an encroachment permit. . Chairman Winburn commented that she opposes the subterranean parking structure for employees because there would not be enough controls. Commissioner Person opined that Modification No. 3017 was ill- advised, and he stated that there is a definite traffic problem in the Riverside Avenue /Avon Street area. Commissioner Person stated that the Traffic Engineer has agreed to a test program to remove a portion of the parking meters in the area to see if the public will use the adjoining Municipal parking lot. Motion x Commissioner Person made a motion to deny Modification No. 3017, and based on the fact that if the motion is supported by the Commission and the Site Plan Review No. 37 is based on the tandem parking spaces, then Commissioner Person stated that he would make a motion to deny Site Plan Review No. 37 on the basis of the tandem parking spaces. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he will support the motion, because he does not agree with the valet /tandem parking and the traffic impact of the project in the area. Commissioner Goff stated that he will support the motion because he does not agree with the valet /tandem parking. 12 COMMISSIONERSI March 7, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the motion because of the heavy traffic in the area and the valet parking. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he supported Use Permit No. 3086 on the basis that the subject property would be used for surface parking only, and he stated that he may have had a different opinion if he had known a structure would be built on the site. Commissioner Person stated that during the first meeting of the project on West Coast Highway, there was discussion of the feasibility of a structure. Chairman Winburn stated that there are no Findings for Denial. Mr. Burnham replied that staff could prepare adequate Findings for the next meeting. Chairman Winburn suggested that this item be continued. Substitute Commissioner Kurlander made a substitute motion to Mot, c o � continue this item in order for staff to prepare x Findings for Denial to Modification No. 3017. C a > y m Mr. Hewicker asked for an explanation of the motion. z c m Z z Commissioner Person stated that if Modification No. M = * m 3017 is denied, then Site Plan Review No. 37 would be A a City of Newport Beach not be before the Commission because the Modification MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the motion because of the heavy traffic in the area and the valet parking. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he supported Use Permit No. 3086 on the basis that the subject property would be used for surface parking only, and he stated that he may have had a different opinion if he had known a structure would be built on the site. Commissioner Person stated that during the first meeting of the project on West Coast Highway, there was discussion of the feasibility of a structure. Chairman Winburn stated that there are no Findings for Denial. Mr. Burnham replied that staff could prepare adequate Findings for the next meeting. Chairman Winburn suggested that this item be continued. Substitute Commissioner Kurlander made a substitute motion to Mot, x continue this item in order for staff to prepare Findings for Denial to Modification No. 3017. Mr. Hewicker asked for an explanation of the motion. Commissioner Person stated that if Modification No. 3017 is denied, then Site Plan Review No. 37 would be subject to denial on the basis that a Site Plan would not be before the Commission because the Modification has been denied. Mr. Hewicker cited that the Commission would only have to remove the tandem parking spaces. Commissioner Turner commented that the Site Plan would not meet the parking requirements. Mr. Hewicker explained that in order to remove the tandem parking, the applicant would eliminate the daytime use of the restaurant on West Coast Highway by 560 square feet of floor area or reduce the proposed project by 3,500 square feet of floor area, and in that event, Mr. Hewicker recommended that the applicant return to the Commission. Commissioner Person asked if the applicant would require an amendment to the use permit if there would be changes on the West Coast Highway project. Mr. Hewicker stated no. Commissioner Koppelman queried the statement regarding the 560 square feet, and Mr. Hewicker replied that this would mean that 560 square feet of floor area would not be useable during the daytime. • Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant would accept a condition to reduce the tandem parking and locate the 13 COMMISSICNERSI March 7, 1985 MINUTES loll parking elsewhere, modification and project. Beach and would accept the denial of the approval of the remainder of the Commissioner 'Kurlander stated that the Findings for Denial should include the elimination of tandem parking. Mr. Hewicker replied that there could be a Finding that the tandem parking is not adequate for employees that would be employed at the West Coast Highway site, that the Commission has a concern regarding the attendant parking, and that the Modification does not meet the legislative intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Burnham stated that Mr. Hewicker's recommended Findings for Denial would he adequate for denying the Modification. Mr. Burnham asked if the Commission were denying the Site Plan in order to look at the plans without the 14 tandem parking spaces, or deny the Site Plan for other reasons? Mr. Burnham stated that he • would rather have the Findings for Denial in writing in order that the Planning Commission could review them and advise staff whether they reflect the Commissions' analysis of the proponents of this project. He further commented that the public hearing would not have to be reopened. Commissioner Person explained that previously the applicant had met with several Planning Commissioners concerning his desire to provide additional parking on the existing lot, and suggested that perhaps a two -level parking structure with commercial development would be feasible, and this parking structure would also eliminate further parking problems in the area. Commissioner Person stated that it was at that time that he commented about the feasibility of a structure on the off -site parking lot and in that event there would be more than adequate parking for these two sites. Commissioner Person further stated that instead of that proposal the applicant applied for a modification to the Zoning Code requiring tandem parking. He said that it was on this basis that he made his motion, and that he will consent to a continuance in order for staff to write Findings for Denial. A A O Commissioner Koppelman suggested to continue z X S C ,' m z c m A o m z m a z a r x am o Findings for Denial, and to continue the Site Plan 0 T M).' M Z S = M z w M loll parking elsewhere, modification and project. Beach and would accept the denial of the approval of the remainder of the Commissioner 'Kurlander stated that the Findings for Denial should include the elimination of tandem parking. Mr. Hewicker replied that there could be a Finding that the tandem parking is not adequate for employees that would be employed at the West Coast Highway site, that the Commission has a concern regarding the attendant parking, and that the Modification does not meet the legislative intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Burnham stated that Mr. Hewicker's recommended Findings for Denial would he adequate for denying the Modification. Mr. Burnham asked if the Commission were denying the Site Plan in order to look at the plans without the 14 tandem parking spaces, or deny the Site Plan for other reasons? Mr. Burnham stated that he • would rather have the Findings for Denial in writing in order that the Planning Commission could review them and advise staff whether they reflect the Commissions' analysis of the proponents of this project. He further commented that the public hearing would not have to be reopened. Commissioner Person explained that previously the applicant had met with several Planning Commissioners concerning his desire to provide additional parking on the existing lot, and suggested that perhaps a two -level parking structure with commercial development would be feasible, and this parking structure would also eliminate further parking problems in the area. Commissioner Person stated that it was at that time that he commented about the feasibility of a structure on the off -site parking lot and in that event there would be more than adequate parking for these two sites. Commissioner Person further stated that instead of that proposal the applicant applied for a modification to the Zoning Code requiring tandem parking. He said that it was on this basis that he made his motion, and that he will consent to a continuance in order for staff to write Findings for Denial. Commissioner Koppelman suggested to continue Modification No. 3017 in order for staff to prepare the . Findings for Denial, and to continue the Site Plan Review to a future date, at which time the applicant could inform the Commission about the location of the parking spaces. 14 ROLL MMISSIONERS March 7, 1985 xx c o � x z c m m i C= N v S O 0 A = a = r m City of Newport Beach Mr. Burnham stated that staff could come back with two sets of Findings for Denial regarding the Site Plan: deny Site Plan Review No. 37 based on traffic, parking, and related considerations; or the Site Plan could be denied because of the necessity to reduce the area of the proposed retail commercial building or limit the daytime use of structure located at 2901 West Coast Highway. Mr. Burnham stated that this could be returned to the Commission and the applicant could present the options without opening the public hearing. Mr. Hewicker advised that it would be helpful to the applicant and staff if they knew if there would be a consensus on part of the Planning Commission as to whether or not one or more of the following design concepts would be acceptable on the subject property: subterranean parking; structure parking with commercial uses on the first floor and roof top parking on the second floor; parking on the first floor and commercial uses on the second floor; multi -level structure • including parking and commercial; or no development on this lot unless it is done with the adjoining property to the east. Commissioner Person queried which restaurants require closing down of portions of the facilities. Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission has approved several use permits that have required portions of restaurants to be closed at times when offstreet parking was limited. Commissioner Person stated that he does not like revisions unless he could review the use permit. Mr. Burnham commented that Use Permit No. 3086 set the outer limits for permitted development on West Coast Highway and the applicant has those rights to the extent that the applicant may develop the property at a reduced level. Chairman Winburn commented that she does not believe that a portion of the restaurant should be closed during the day or evening, and she does not support subterranean parking for employees. Commissioner Goff stated that he opposes subterranean parking and that multi -level structures would be an over - intensification of the area. He commented that • this intense development would be detrimental to property values in the area. Mr. Hewicker asked the Planning Commission their opinions regarding subterranean parking. Commissioner 15 MINUTES ROLL COM/V\ISSIONERSI March 7, 1985 MINUTES Beach Goff stated that this subterranean parking is a very significant part of this project. Furthermore, tandem parking and valets crossing West Coast Highway would not be an appropriate use. Mr. Hewicker replied that there was never any intent of a valet shuttling cars across West Coast Highway. Commissioner Goff stated that he objects to a valet crossing West Coast Highway. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Burnham what grounds the Commission has to deny subterranean parking? Mr. Burnham replied that the subject subterranean parking is different than previously approved subterranean parking areas because it would be located in an off -site location. All Ayes IxIxIxlx r I 1 1 Substitute motion was voted on to continue Modification I No. 3017 to March 21, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Motion x� Motion was made to continue Site Plan Review No. 37 to All Ayes x x x x K I I the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. Mr. o r v m Burnham asked if this additional time would be only for staff to prepare Findings for Denial, and not to open Z c m m z the public hearing? Commissioner Turner stated that 0 A A = r 0 x Am o. cit city o �(' z A z a* z m " 1 MINUTES Beach Goff stated that this subterranean parking is a very significant part of this project. Furthermore, tandem parking and valets crossing West Coast Highway would not be an appropriate use. Mr. Hewicker replied that there was never any intent of a valet shuttling cars across West Coast Highway. Commissioner Goff stated that he objects to a valet crossing West Coast Highway. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Burnham what grounds the Commission has to deny subterranean parking? Mr. Burnham replied that the subject subterranean parking is different than previously approved subterranean parking areas because it would be located in an off -site location. All Ayes IxIxIxlx r I 1 1 Substitute motion was voted on to continue Modification I No. 3017 to March 21, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to continue Site Plan Review No. 37 to All Ayes x x x x K I I the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. Mr. Burnham asked if this additional time would be only for staff to prepare Findings for Denial, and not to open the public hearing? Commissioner Turner stated that maybe the applicant should revise the plans and the public hearing could be reopened on this matter. Commissioner Koppelman stated that the parking problem may be resolved if the parking lot is redesigned. Mr. Hewicker responded to the question regarding the continuance of the public hearing for the purpose of considering the revised plan for the Site Plan Review, by stating that the Site Plan Review does not need a public hearing or public notice. Chairman Winburn stated that the four week continuance would allow for redesign of the project. Motion voted on, MOTION .. CARRIED. Motion x Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant approves the All Ayes x x x x x continuance of Resubdivision No. 799. Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. x x x The Planning Commission meeting recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. IM1111111� 16 COMMISSIONERS March 7, 1985 MINUTES � u � x f y a> y m . z c m o m z __ 0 or 00 zz Z m a City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 798 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land R798 containing 43.42 acres into four parcels for conveyance purposes. ont'd to r.4 1985 LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 93, 95 and 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 875 Marguerite Avenue, on the southwesterly corner of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive; and 3400 Fifth Avenue, located on the northeasterly side of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and the Newport Beach City limits, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant. • ENGINEER: VTN Consolidated, Inc., Irvine Motion Motion was made to continue this item to April 4, 1985. All Ayes x x x x MOTION CARRIED. x ,t `f �J J Variance No. 1121 (Public Hearin Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling and related garage and carport on property located in the the R -1 District which exceeds 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow the following encroachments into required setback areas: a 3 ft. -6in. encroachment into the required 5 foot front yard setback on Cove Street which includes a portion of the basement level and a raised deck, with railing (7 ft. -9 in.± above natural grade) on the first floor level; a 6 ft. building and deck encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback; and an open stairway with railing that is 6 ft. 9in.t in height and which encroaches 3 feet into the required 3 foot street side setback adjacent to Fernleaf Avenue. 17 3 ROLL March 7, 1985 Of MINUTES t Beach LOCATION: Lot 3, Block A -33, Corona Del Mar Tract, located at 2700 Cove Street, on the northeasterly corner of Cove Street and Fernleaf Avenue, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Ronald I. Sakahara, Costa Mesa OWNER: Harold G. Parker, Corona Del Mar The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Harold Parker, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Parker referred to his letter dated February 7, 1985, to the Planning Department requesting the variance and modification application. x x c o � Mr. Parker cited (A) Exceptional and Extraordinary x _ C M a a m z c m > m z m a x z r a x a m o substantially shorter (60 feet) and smaller (2,100 a s m i z a z a z m ROLL March 7, 1985 Of MINUTES t Beach LOCATION: Lot 3, Block A -33, Corona Del Mar Tract, located at 2700 Cove Street, on the northeasterly corner of Cove Street and Fernleaf Avenue, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Ronald I. Sakahara, Costa Mesa OWNER: Harold G. Parker, Corona Del Mar The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Harold Parker, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Parker referred to his letter dated February 7, 1985, to the Planning Department requesting the variance and modification application. • I I I I I I I I In response to a question posed by Chairman Winburn, Mr. Parker stated that he does not know the square footage of the present structure. 18 Mr. Parker cited (A) Exceptional and Extraordinary Circumstances, as being that the property is substantially shorter (60 feet) and smaller (2,100 square feet) than the average Corona del Mar lot which has a lot area of 3,540 square feet; and that the 1.5 floor area limit and the 10 foot rear yard set back requirement imposes undue hardship on shorter, smaller lots as compared to average lots. He cited (B) Preservation and Enjoyment of Substantial Property Rights, as being that the structure is a concrete block beach house without much flexibility and unless the dwelling is reconstructed the value of his property would diminish. Mr. Parker further stated that the proposed variance (C) Will Not Be Detrimental to Neighborhood, as being that the proposed structure will not have a negative impact on the neighbors. Mr. Parker reviewed the architectural drawings of the proposed structure and neighborhood by describing the requested variance, and concluded his presentation by stating that the proposal would not infringe on any of the neighbors' property rights, that he is requesting a 1.97 times buildable area of the lot that is consistent with the intent of the Code, that the loss of the.front deck would eliminate enjoyment of the view, that the encroachments are minor when compared to the excess of open space that has been provided, and that Cove Street is not a through street in this area, and that Fernleaf Avenue has a 10 foot buffer plus a side yard setback. • I I I I I I I I In response to a question posed by Chairman Winburn, Mr. Parker stated that he does not know the square footage of the present structure. 18 NAAAISSIONNERS March 7, 1985 xx C 0 x . y v 9 m 2 C m Z p Z C 2 0 0 3 0 0 City M a of Newport Beach a MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX Mr. Ronald Sakahara, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission, by describing the architectural drawings of the proposed outdoor living area. Mr. John Gray, 2701 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the applicant. Mr. Gray stated that the applicant's proposed project would be a benefit to the community, and that the China Cove lots are small and each request requires special consideration. Commissioner Person asked Mr. Gray his opinion regarding the City initiating an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit 2 times buildable area on the lots in China Cove rather than grant variances, and if there would be any drawbacks? Mr. Gray replied that an amendment may be an excellent approach to the special community. The public hearing was closed at this time. • Commissioner Person asked Mr. Hewicker what would be involved to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit 2 times buildable area on small lots in China Cove as a separate area from Corona del Mar? Mr. Hewicker replied that it would be an amendment to the Corona del Mar Residential Development Standards in the Zoning Code, and would have to be written to allow for a greater floor area ratio for the China Cove lots. Mr. Hewicker suggested that maybe this could be done for lots below a certain square footage. He said an amendment to the Municipal Code can be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council and he suggested that maybe this could be done before granting further variances. Mr. Hewicker further stated that with respect to the subject lot in comparison to the neighboring lot to the east, the subject lot is wider, and by being wider the applicant is required to provide more open space on the lot than the smaller lot. Mr. Hewicker commented that a front yard encroachment on waterfront property is a jealously guarded encroachment within the City. Commissioner Person commented that he has difficulty granting variances when staff has recommended denial. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission could follow the granting of the variance with a modification with the recommendation to the City Council that there 19 March 7, 1985 x Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL ( I I I J i l l I INDEX be an amendment to the Residential Development Standards to allow this intensity of development on small lots in China Cove. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Hewicker replied that it would take from four to six months to process an amendment to the Zoning Code. Chairman Winburn commented that the adjacent property, located at 2704 Cove Street, has been developed at 2 times the buildable area of the lot including a two car garage, and a liveable area of 1,757 square feet, and that if the applicant built at 1.5 times the buildable area, including a one car garage and carport, that there would be a liveable area of 1,720. square feet. Chairman Winburn further commented that she would not be in favor of granting the variance but would request the applicant to revise the plans. Mr. Parker cited that an appraiser did not consider his land as waterfront property because of the easement in front of the property. Mr. Hewicker replied that the property is in the first row of lots from the water. Motion x Commissioner Person made a motion to deny Variance No. 1121, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and approval of the modification for the proposed rear yard setback encroachment. Commissioner Person stated further that he will be making a motion to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit 2 times the buildable area on lots which are 3,000 square feet or smaller in China Cove. All Ayes I xlxIx x� x� Motion voted on to deny Variance No. 1121 subject to the.findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" and approval of the modification for the rear yard setback encroachment. MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Commissioner Person made a motion that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code for the China Cove area of Corona del Mar which will permit 2 times buildable area on lots of 3,000 square feet or less, and that the public hearing he set for the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. • I ( ( I It c O n X c' 9 9 m z c m z m m z z r a x c= p S O O M 0 O m * T z 2 x 2 9 E T m z March 7, 1985 x Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL ( I I I J i l l I INDEX be an amendment to the Residential Development Standards to allow this intensity of development on small lots in China Cove. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Hewicker replied that it would take from four to six months to process an amendment to the Zoning Code. Chairman Winburn commented that the adjacent property, located at 2704 Cove Street, has been developed at 2 times the buildable area of the lot including a two car garage, and a liveable area of 1,757 square feet, and that if the applicant built at 1.5 times the buildable area, including a one car garage and carport, that there would be a liveable area of 1,720. square feet. Chairman Winburn further commented that she would not be in favor of granting the variance but would request the applicant to revise the plans. Mr. Parker cited that an appraiser did not consider his land as waterfront property because of the easement in front of the property. Mr. Hewicker replied that the property is in the first row of lots from the water. Motion x Commissioner Person made a motion to deny Variance No. 1121, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and approval of the modification for the proposed rear yard setback encroachment. Commissioner Person stated further that he will be making a motion to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit 2 times the buildable area on lots which are 3,000 square feet or smaller in China Cove. All Ayes I xlxIx x� x� Motion voted on to deny Variance No. 1121 subject to the.findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" and approval of the modification for the rear yard setback encroachment. MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Commissioner Person made a motion that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code for the China Cove area of Corona del Mar which will permit 2 times buildable area on lots of 3,000 square feet or less, and that the public hearing he set for the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. • I ( ( I "+Zi] Commissioner Goff stated that he cannot support the motion because the 2 times buildable area on small lots in China Cove could give the area too much intensification. "+Zi] ROLL MMI551C�NtKS March 7, 1985 x x c 0 o � Commissioner Person removed the 3,000 square feet from x m z c m z z x x x C Z 0 D X O O Z X Z 9 a, m City of Newport Beach Commissioner Person stated that because China Cove is a unique area of Newport Beach, that maybe granting of variances is not the right approach for the area, and that by holding a public hearing there would be an opportunity to take a closer look at China Cove. Commissioner Goff commented that because of the uniqueness of the area, each project should be looked at on an individual basis. Commissioner Turner stated that he will support the motion because there are problems in China Cove that are unique to the area. He further stated that even though the proposed project did not affect the neighbors, the Planning Commission was bound by law to grant a variance only under certain conditions which are not there, and maybe under those circumstances that the Commission should take a look at a change in the Ordinance to see if that can be rectified. is Commissioner Turner asked staff if 3,000 square feet is commensurate with the problem. Mr. Hewicker replied that the square footage would be difficult to calculate accurately at this time, but that staff would come back with a recommendation. Commissioner Person stated that the reason he recommended 3,000 square feet was because the figure is large enough to be flexible. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the square footage need not be specified, but that 2 times the buildable for the lots in China Cove would be adequate. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would not support the motion because the lots should be handled on an individual basis, and that she does not have a problem granting a variance where needed and appropriate. Ayes x x x Commissioner Person removed the 3,000 square feet from Noes x x x x the motion. Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. Mr. Gray stated his concern regarding the denial of the variance and denial of a public hearing for the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code by emphasizing the need for the Planning Commission to take some kind of action in order to improve development of the China Cove area. • Commissioner Person responded by stating that there are conditions for the variance in terms of the findings that have to be made, and in most cases this is 21 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS C C 0 A O = i y 9 9 m z c m y ,� z Ma N o ;oo 9= M s T m March 7, 1985 MINUTES City f Newport Beach Y P ROLL CALL INDEX difficult to find. Commissioner Person suggested that Mr. Parker appeal to the City Council, and if City Council feels an amendment would be warranted, then action will be taken.. Commissioner Goff stated that his opposition was based on the fact that adding 33 -1/3% to the massive buildings in China Cove could be a detriment and would not improve the area, but by rebuilding safe structures there is sufficient motive for improvement to the area. FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to the land, building, and /or uses in the same district. In fact, the subject property is larger than many other properties in the China Cove area. 2. That the granting of a variance to allow the • residence to exceed the permitted floor area ratio of 1.5 times the buildable area is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as this standard does not preclude construction of a dwelling containing an adequate amount of living area and off - street parking spaces. Further, other properties in China Cove of a size and shape similar to the subject property have been devel- oped in accordance with the floor area limita- tions. 3. The proposed rear yard setback encroachment will result in a rear yard setback that is comparable to the required side yard setback on the adjoining property to the northeast. For this reason, the approval of the requested encroachment will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and the proposed modification • is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 22 ROLL V\N\b51UNLK5 March 7, 1985 x x c o � A x z c m z c= H o S 0 0 T 9 City of Newport Beach s 4. That the establishment, maintenance,.and use of a structure on the subject property which exceeds the permitted floor area ratio of 1.5 times the buildable area will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. • 2. That the structure shall be redesigned so as to conform to the permitted floor area ratio of 1.5 times the buildable area (1,957.5 sq. ft.). 3. That no encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas shall be allowed, except for those encroachments permitted by Section 20.10.025 of the Municipal Code. 4. That the landing encroaching into the required 3 foot side yard adjacent to Fernleaf. Avenue shall be no higher that 3 feet above natural grade. The proposed handrail on the stairway and landing shall be no higher than 6 feet above natural grade, and shall be of open, wrought iron or wooden construction. 5. This modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.81.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) • Request to consider a revised traffic study for a 15,000 square foot office building so as to allow a 23 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS March 7, 1985 MINUTES C x C O � x y 9 9 m z c m s m z c z N 0 9 0 0 a z x City of Newport Beach a a ROLL CALL INDEX portion (7500 square feet) of the building to be used rraffic for a savings and loan facility whereas previously the Study entire building was designated for general office and corporate office use. Approved ondition- LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 152 -17 311Y (Resubdivision No. 616), located at 1100 Newport Center Drive, on the southeasterly corner of Granville Drive and Newport Center Drive, in Newport Center ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Carver Development OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Chairman Winburn commented that a portion of the office building previously approved on the subject site is now • designated for savings and loan purposes, and on the basis that there would be additional traffic other than had been projected, it was necessary for the applicant to amend the traffic analysis. Chairman Winburn opened the public hearing. The applicant or his representative were not in the audience to speak on behalf of the traffic study. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Ix lxlxlxlxl Chairman Winburn made a motion to approve the Traffic All Ayes x Study for 1100 Newport Center Drive, subject to the Findings for Approval. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S -1, and; 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major ", "primary- modified ", or "primary" street. 24 March 7, 1985 Beach Proposed Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Reaardina Measurement of Front Yard Mr. Burnham stated that the purpose of this Amendment would be to clarify the line from which setbacks shown on the Districting Maps should be measured in residential districts. Motion x lll I I Motion was made to set the proposed Amendment to Title All Ayes x x x x 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Items for the Joint MINUTES x x C o The Planning Commission reviewed the various items on i = y v 7 m t c m m = 9 C a = r 0 I AmZm >TTCityof 2 S= y a r m Beach Proposed Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Reaardina Measurement of Front Yard Mr. Burnham stated that the purpose of this Amendment would be to clarify the line from which setbacks shown on the Districting Maps should be measured in residential districts. Motion x lll I I Motion was made to set the proposed Amendment to Title All Ayes x x x x 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Items for the Joint MINUTES ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Mr. Hewicker informed Commissioner Person that The Blue Dolphin Restaurant had been serving beer and wine the past two or three years, and Mr. Hewicker further stated that the present owners of the restaurant recently met with Mr. Laycock and himself regarding the type of restaurant they intend to operate. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of initiating an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit • development on the small residential lots in China Cove to be increased to 2.0 times the buildable area. The Commission voted (4 Ayes, 3 Noes) not to initiate said amendment. 25 for Counc. Comm. to Code The Planning Commission reviewed the various items on the draft agenda for the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting on March 25, 1985. It was determined that the most important item on the agenda should be the discussion regarding the status of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. The Commission also recommended that intensities of development in the City, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and In -Lieu Parking should be discussed if there is adequate time. In addition, the Commission directed, staff to update the Planning Department's Projects' List from March 28, 1983, so that said list could be reviewed at the joint meeting. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Mr. Hewicker informed Commissioner Person that The Blue Dolphin Restaurant had been serving beer and wine the past two or three years, and Mr. Hewicker further stated that the present owners of the restaurant recently met with Mr. Laycock and himself regarding the type of restaurant they intend to operate. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of initiating an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit • development on the small residential lots in China Cove to be increased to 2.0 times the buildable area. The Commission voted (4 Ayes, 3 Noes) not to initiate said amendment. 25 for Counc. Comm. to Code COMMISSIONERS March 7, 1985 MINUTES c O � - M z c m Z s c= 0 o i. 0 C a= a a T 0 m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL I I I INDEX The Planning Commission directed Planning Director Ad Hoc Hewicker to submit a list of all of the Ad Hoc Committee Committees to the Commission for review. List Motion x The Commission initiated a proposed amendment to All Ayes x x x x x x x Chapter 20.83, Nonconforming Structures and Uses, as Amend.to . recommended by City Attorney Burnham. The public Chapter hearing was set for the Planning Commission meeting of 20.83 April 4, 1985. • • • • x ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 P.M. Adjourn- went JOHN KURLANDER, SECRETARY NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 26