Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1992COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at 7:33 p.m.) X- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer ' Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of Aril 23 1 Minutes of 4/23/92 Chairman Di Sano requested that page 13, second paragraph, of the subject minutes be corrected to state a residence he lived in and not property he owned. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the corrected April 23, Ayes * * ' * 1992, Planning Commission minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent 'sss Public mm n • Public Comments Commissioner Debay recognized Thursday, May 7, 1992, as the National Day of Prayer. • COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 1, 1992, in front of City Hall. • t k Planning Commission Review No. 16 (Discussion) Item No.I Request to retain previously installed roof mounted solar panels Pcx ie which exceed the basic height limit on a new single - family dwelling located in the 24/28 Foot Height limitation District. Approves LOCATION: Parcel B, Resubdivision No. 181, located at 345 La Jolla Drive, on the northwesterly side of La Jolla Drive, at the northwesterly terminus of Beacon Street, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Henry R. Brown, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant No one appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and Chairman Di Sano indicated that the applicant shall be required to comply with the findings and conditions in Exhibit Commissioner Glover stated that the subject dwelling has been under construction since 1986. The solar panels may not have a visual impact on surrounding properties; however, the residents have indicated that the property is a detriment to the community based on the length of time that the property has been under construction. She pointed out that the adjacent property owners were not notified by public notice for the reasons indicated in the • staff report. -2- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that Amendment No. 748 was recently adopted by the City Council regarding the powers and duties of the Modifications Committee which will include similar applications in the future, and property owners within 100 feet of the property will be notified of the request. The applicant submitted the subject request prior to the adoption of the City Council Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Building Director has advised that there has not been any progress on the site since May, 1991, which may require the applicant to apply for a new Building Permit if the previous Permit has expired. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant could only appeal the • decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, and not to the Modifications Committee. Motion * Commissioner Debay made a motion to approve Planning Ayes * * * Commission Review No. 16 subject to the findings and conditions No in Exhibit 'W, on the basis that the requested solar panels do not exceed the highest point of the existing roof, and that the Building Department will follow up on the previous stated concerns. r: Chairman Di Sano supported the motion and he concurred that the Building Department pursue the aforementioned complaints. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion based on Commissioner Debay's comments. was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. 1. That the existing solar panels do not adversely impact the views enjoyed by neighboring properties. -3- COMMISSIONERS A � 03 • .�n 0 May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the solar panels do not adversely intrude on light or air, from adjoining residential properties or the public streets overlooking the subject property. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved elevations and dimensions. 2. That the solar panels shall conform with the Uniform Building Code. 3. That a separate Building Permit shall be obtained for the as-built construction of the solar panels which are the subject of this approval. • Resubdivision No 79 rin Item No. 2 Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into a single 8979 parcel for commercial office purposes, on property located in the A -P [0.5] District. Approved LOCATION: A portion of Lot 94, Tract No. 1701, located at 1550 Bayside Drive, on the northerly comer of Bayside Drive and El Paseo Drive, at the westerly entrance to Irvine Terrace. ZONE: A -P [0.5] PLICANT: Penco Engineering, Inc., Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Industrial Company, Irvine ENGINEER: Same as applicant • -4- COMMISSIONERS .o 21 d • �� �� May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mike Padian, Project Director for The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Padian requested a clarification of Condition No. 3 in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, regarding public improvements. He questioned if the condition also states that on -site improvements are not required prior to recordation of the parcel map if surety is provided. James Hewicker, Planning Director, and Don Webb, City Engineer, concurred that on -site improvements exist within the parcel map and no structures would be involved. Mr. Webb indicated that some parking within the public right -of -way would have to be removed. Mr. Padian agreed to remove all parking spaces from the public right -of -way as requested in Condition No. 4 in Exhibit "A". • Mr. Padian addressed Condition No. 5 in Exhibit "A" requesting that 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of net floor area of the existing office building be provided. He agreed with staff that 30 parking spaces should have. originally been provided based on the net floor area instead of the existing 28 parking spaces. It is the desire of the applicant to "grandfather" uses in the project inasmuch as they did not envision making any on -site or public improvements. The applicant cannot guarantee that 30 parking spaces, a 6 foot sidewalk, and landscaping can be provided on the property until an engineering drawing is completed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding "universal" parking spaces, Mr. Padian responded that the existing parking spaces are standard size. He indicated that the applicant would like to avoid the installation of tandem and compact parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City has gone from standard and compact parking stalls to "universal" stalls, and there should be ample space on the requested single parcel to provide the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker indicated that subsequent to when the office building was originally developed in the 1950's that it is feasible that the additional 2 required parking spaces were eliminated through restriping of the parking lot. • -5- COMMISSIONERS � d • May 7, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL Ill Jill INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross regarding a statement in the staff report indicating that the request is for financing and conveyance purposes, Mr. Webb explained that the front portion of the parcel was granted to the City for a water easement. There was a revisionary clause that indicated that when the City discontinued using the easement for water purposes, the City was required to return it to The Irvine Company. The City Council has relinquished the easement and will be quitclaiming the property back to The Irvine Company, and the recommendation is that the parking lot be redesigned to recognize the street right -of- way lines. Mr. Webb and Mr. Hewicker explained the request to establish one parcel inasmuch as the difference in size of the two parcels makes it difficult to develop only one parcel. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding Condition No. 5 and the required number of parking spaces, Mr. ' Padian stated that he disagreed with the number of parking spaces requested. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding Condition No. 6 in Exhibit "A ", handicapped parking spaces, Mr. Padian stated that the applicant would comply with the request. Mr. Hewicker explained that the handicapped parking space would be included in the required 30 parking spaces. Commissioner Merrill stated that eventually an ensuing property owner would realize that 30 parking spaces are not provided on the subject property, as required, if the applicant would be allowed to maintain the existing 28 parking spaces. Commissioner Merrill, Commissioner Glover, Commissioner Edwards, and Mr. Padian discussed a parking design and the requirement to provide 30 parking spaces. Mr. Padian stated that The Irvine Company wants to provide an economical and efficient way for a future property owner to purchase the subject property. Commissioner Debay asked if the applicant could provide 29 parking spaces and bicycle racks that would allow an elimination of 1 parking space. Mr. Webb stated that the suggestion could set a precedent and needs to be studied. 6- COMMISSIONERS � 0 May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Following a concern expressed by Mr. Padian that the applicant may not be able to comply with Condition No. 5 to provide 30 on- sits parking spaces depending upon the results of the engineering plan, Mr. Hewicker explained that the. applicant could apply for a Modification Permit for a tandem parking space or to reduce the size of a specific number of parking spaces so as to provide the required 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. Mr. Webb, Mr. Padian and Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, discussed Condition No. 5 and staffs comments that a surety for on -site parking lot improvements would not be advisable. In response to statements regarding the parking lot posed by Commissioner Merrill and Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Padian explained that based on the site plan, it would be necessary to reconstruct the parking lot so as to provide the required number of parking spaces. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, determined that the site plan indicates there is adequate space to design a parking layout that would accommodate the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Webb stated that The Irvine Company should be able to sell the parcel for a greater amount of money because the City has vacated and abandoned the easement area and there is a substantial number of square feet of right -of- way to sell. Commissioner Gross stated that the applicant has the options to review the parking lot layout with the Modifications Committee and /or staff. Mr. Padian stated that one reason to resubdivide the two existing parcels into a single parcel is to be able to provide the required number of parking spaces for office development. In response to a comment posed by Commissioner Merrill with respect to Condition No. 5 in Exhibit "A" ...the on -site parking shall be redesigned.., Mr. Webb suggested that the condition be modified to state ..the on -site parking shall be redesigned and reconstructed.. Mr. Webb explained that if the subject property would be sold without the parking lot improvements, it could be difficult to complete the requirement in the future. Mr. Padian determined that the applicant is being required to make the improvements on -7- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the property before the property can be sold. Following a discussion regarding Condition No. 6, handicapped parking spaces, Mr. Webb stated that a modification to the condition would not be required inasmuch as the requirement would be included with Condition No. 5. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Padian concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Condition No. 5. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. notion Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 979 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Condition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. The parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System (NAD83) and that the final map shall be submitted to the County in a digital format acceptable to the County. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall • be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the -8 COMMISSIONERS � o May 7, 1992 *MUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INOEX Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to the completion of construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That all parking spaces be removed from the public rigbt -of- way. 5. That prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the on -site parking shall be redesigned and reconstructed so as to • provide 1 parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area of the existing office building. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 6. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designed within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 7. That the on -site parking and the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That the deteriorated and displaced sections of curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Bayside Drive frontage; that the deteriorated and displaced sections of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the El Paseo Drive frontage; and that a 6 foot wide sidewalk be constructed along the Bayside Drive frontage with a curb access ramp • constructed at the intersection of El Pasco Drive and -9- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 MINUTES � - o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL Iii fill I INDEX Bayside Drive. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 10. That the trees, shrubs and landscaping in the public right -of- way be pruned to meet the City sight distance standard. 11. That the trash enclosure be relocated outside the public right -of -way to a location acceptable to the Building Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. A. General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) li in Item No.3 Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so �l GPA (R1 95) (R1295) as to eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms approved for the A745 Sheraton Hotel site; change the development entitlement from (R1296) Hotel Rooms to Retail and Service Commercial uses; and establish TS78 an allocation of 41,750 square feet of commercial development for R980 the proposed General Commercial Site 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community; and the acceptance of an environmental Approved document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND • -10- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 MINUTES O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX B. Amendment No. 745 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations so as to redesignate the existing Sheraton Hotel site from Hotel Site 1A and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5; reduce the hotel room entitlement on Hotel Site 1 by 119 rooms and establish a development entitlement of 41,750 square feet of general commercial development within the newly established General Commercial Site 5; and the addition of development provisions which establish a height limit of 50 feet within General Commercial Site 5 and the requirement for reciprocal ingress, egress and parking between Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5. AND C. Traffic Study No. 78 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of 41,750 square feet of retail commercial development in the proposed General Commercial Site 5, located in the Newport Place Planned Community. AND D. Resubdivision No 980 Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide the existing Sheraton Hotel site into two parcels of land; one parcel to be used for the existing hotel purposes and the other parcel for future commercial development. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 77 -42-43 (Resubdivision No. 483), located at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. • ZONE: P -C -11- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Larken, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Barrios and Anderson, Anaheim James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the addendum to the staff report that was distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the subject public hearing. The addendum included a revision to Traffic Study No. 78, Finding No. 2, Exhibits "A" and "B ". John Douglas, Principal Planner, explained that the finding was inadvertently omitted and is required by the Council Policy on Traffic Phasing Ordinance implementation. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry Bame, 10055 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Bame concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A" and "B ". Mr. Bame stated that the applicant considers the subject request a "downzoning" of the parcel from a high -rise project to a low -rise project. He stated that staff has addressed concerns regarding traffic, and the applicant has attempted to comply with said concerns. He explained that staffs recommendation, Exhibit "B ", recommends that the project be developed at a substantially lower entitlement than what the applicant originally requested. Exhibit "A" addresses staffs concerns inasmuch as the conditions require the development to remain under a specific number of trips. If the project does not adhere to said requirements, then the applicant would be required to comply with some oppressive traffic mitigation measures. The applicant indicated that he would reluctantly agree to Exhibit "B ", but considers it to be an ultra- conservative approach. He indicated that staff's concerns are that the applicant does not have a specific proposal as to a site plan; however, the applicant would ultimately submit a request for a plan to the City to address the • proposed development on the property. -12- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross regarding the Traffic Study, Mr. Bame responded that Mitigation Measure 2b in Exhibit "A' states that if the project generates more than 109 trips, a mitigation measure would require improvements at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in the City of Irvine. Mr. Bame further responded that he does not have concerns with respect to the Traffic Study. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, . Mr. Douglas explained that one of staffs main concerns is the project's feasibility considering the square footage of development, parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements. He further noted that it appears doubtful that the proposed project would physically fit on the site without going to extraordinary means, i.e. subterranean parking, structure parking, or multi -story structures. If the development would be physically feasible, staff also has concerns • as to whether it would be financially feasible, and whether the development would be compatible with the adjacent properties. Mr. Wine stated that the applicant does not have objections with the parking requirements or mitigation requirements, and the development would be within the constraints of the City's requirements. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the inferior condition of some of the older buildings adjacent to the subject property, and he indicated that landscape improvements could make the area more attractive. Mr. Hewicker explained that MacArthur Boulevard primarily consists of low -rise or mid -rise buildings of three or four story buildings; and the subject hotel. MacArthur Boulevard is a landscaped street that consists of two parcels that have not been developed, and small retail centers. The existing buildings primarily consist of a Floor Area Ratio of 0.30 and the requested 0.40 FAR would consist of a scale of development that does not presently exist. Mr. Bame stated that it is conceivable that the applicant may not develop a project that would consist of a 0.40 FAR • -13- COMMISSIONERS .o d May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL il Jill INDEX Commissioner Gross stated that be would like to see improvements made at the MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road intersection wherein Mr. Bame and Commissioner Gross discussed the applicant's desire not to exceed the number of trips that would require said improvements. Mr. Douglas indicated that staff also has a concern regarding the City's traffic forecasting model if the Commission approves Exhibit "A" but the developer did not actually build the full entitlement allowed by the 0.40 FAR. The General Plan Traffic Model assumes all of the development that could feasibly be built based on entitlements will be built. If the project is constructed at a lower intensity, then there would be an incorrect assumption built in the traffic model and it would be projecting greater traffic impacts in the future than will actually occur. The result would be that other developers may be burdened with improving intersections and • roadways that may not actually need to be improved. Discussion ensued between Mr. Bame and Chairman Di Sano regarding the time frame of the future development on the site and the effect the project would have on the traffic model and future development in the City if the Commission approved Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Douglas explained that if the developer did not construct a project as requested and reduces the size of the development, then a General . Plan Amendment would be required in order for the City's traffic model to accurately reflect the project's traffic impact. Mr. Hewicker explained that the subject request would not be considered a downzoning based on the traffic impacts. The proposed development would generate more traffic, and specifically more traffic during peak hours, than a hotel. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay concerning if the Commission approved Exhibit 'B" in the staff report, and it is subsequently determined that the applicant requested to develop a larger project than the project the Commission approved, Mr. Douglas replied that the applicant • could request a General Plan Amendment to increase the project -14- COMMISSIONERS 3 d May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX size. Mr. Bame, Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Hewicker addressed the feasibility of the applicant returning to the Commission to initiate a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Hewicker explained that when the General Plan Amendment was approved in 1988, the commercial and industrial sites throughout the City were generally downzoned. He addressed the concept of approving a project with a higher Floor Area Ratio than what is anticipated, and the relationship between the entitlement and the circulation system. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Douglas explained the process, the time frame, and staffs analysis of the applicant's final proposal before bringing the subject request to the Commission. Mr. Bame explained that the requested 41,750 square feet for the proposed project was for the purpose of coming up with a scenario that would satisfy the City Traffic Engineer and the traffic analysis. Mr. Douglas pointed out that one of the mitigation measures in the Negative Declaration states that the proposed project should be modified so that the peak hour trip generation does not exceed 109 trips, and staff subsequently drafted the recommended conditions of approval, as well as the alternative in Exhibit "B" in order to comply with the mitigation measure. Staff concluded that it would be beneficial to propose a square footage or Floor Area Ratio limit on the project rather than trip limit inasmuch as it would be easier for interested parties to understand and for City staff to implement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained the commercial floor area limits that were established when the revised General Plan was adopted in 1988. She further explained that staffs alternative to the subject proposal was to address the limitations of the circulation system as defined by the General Plan Traffic Study. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Bame explained that the applicant would market the property in accordance with the conditions that are imposed by the Commission. -15- COMMISSIONERS A\1\ May 7, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Ken Balch, 10055 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, agent for the property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Balch stated that the subject property has been marketed as a potential commercial and retail site. The market value of the subject property is $1,000,000.00 less than it was 14 months ago; therefore, there is an urgency to market and develop the property. The applicant would comply with the Commission's approval. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Balch explained that the intent is that retail would be established on the first floor and office space on the upper floors. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Gross indicated that he could support Exhibit "A" on the basis that the proposed project could be considered • "downzoning" compared to a 375 foot high hotel that could be developed on the site, and improvements need to be made at the . intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Commissioner Edwards stated that he could support Exhibit 'B" on the basis that the subject project could have an adverse affect on future developers and existing property owners. A developer has the option to be able to come back to the City to initiate a General Plan Amendment for a larger project. Commissioner Glover stated that she could support Exhibit 'B ". She recognized the vacancy rate that exists at the Sheraton Hotel; however, she indicated that the Commission needs to consider all of the property owners in the City and it is her desire to balance development with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in accordance with the General Plan. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he could support Exhibit "A" so as to improve the MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road intersection. -16- COMMISSIONERS I G May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Debay stated that she could support Exhibit 'B ". The subject request could set a precedent, and it is feasible that if Exhibit "A" would be approved that the traffic analysis could affect all future developers. Chairman Di Sano stated he would support Exhibit "B" on the basis that when the City adopted the General Plan, the area was basically downzoned, and it would be an inappropriate signal to approve Exhibit "A". Motion Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment No. 90- 3(A) (Resolution No. 1295), Amendment No. 745 (Resolution No. 1296), Traffic Study No. 78 including modified Finding No. 2, and Resubdivision No. 980 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Gross stated that the subject request would not set a precedent inasmuch as the construction of a four -story building is downzoning compared to a 375 foot high hotel, and it is not currently economically feasible to develop the site into a hotel. Ayes * * * Motion was voted on to approve Exhibit "B ". MOTION .No _ * CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a -17- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. 3. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in • ' Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that. in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2a. The proposed project shall be modified such that estimated peak hour trip generation does not exceed 109 trips. • -18- COMMISSIONERS .o a May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL Ill Jill INDEX 2b. That the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road be improved such that no measurable increase in the ICU value will occur as a result of the project. B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3(A) Adopt Resolution No. 1295, recommending approval of General . Plan Amendment 90 -3(A) to the City Council. C. AMENDMENT NO. 745, Adopt Resolution No. 1296, recommending to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 745, an amendment to the Newport Planned Community District Regulations to rezone Hotel Site IA to General Commercial land uses other than hotel use with the following condition: • CONDITION: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant or his successor shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 15.40). D. RESUBDIVISION NO, 980 FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits for Parcel 2 unless otherwise -19- COMMISSIONERS .d O 03 rn • 0tv May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That the Parcel Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that the final map shall be submitted to the County in a digital format acceptable to the County. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the Public • improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each building be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. The pedestrian circulation system shall include walkways that connect the internal system to the sidewalk along the public streets. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That the displaced concrete sidewalk be replaced at the intersection of Birch Street and MacArthur -20- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1992 MINUTES ,e o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL j I I J J 1 INDEX Boulevard and that access ramps be constructed at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way, and at each street entrance to Parcels 1 and 2 where none exists; that access ramps and sidewalk be constructed in the median island at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way and on the southwesterly curb return; that the existing temporary asphalt patch around the telephone manhole in the drive apron be replaced with concrete on Corinthian Way; and that the drive approach opposite Martingale be reconstructed to conform to Standard Drawing No. 166 -L. Pending a review of the internal circulation system this drive may need to be moved westerly to line up with Martingale. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public • Works Department. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 11. That any Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L • -21- COMMISSIONERS `e - d �0' � May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 12. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or. delivery of materials within the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way. 13. That bus turnouts be constructed along both the Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard frontages with locations to be approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority and that appropriate easements be dedicated to the City where needed. If bus shelters are provided, they shall be constructed outside the public right -of -way and be maintained by the hotel unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. That pedestrian access be provided from the bus stops to the site. 14. That the landscape plans be subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works and Planning Departments with sight distance provided in accordance with City Standard No. 110-L. 15. That the existing fire service located on Corinthian Way (near Scott) be adjusted to be flush with the sidewalk. 16. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, . the applicant or his successor shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 15.40). • -22- COMMISSIONERS � o May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX E TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 78 FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S -1. 2. A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation reduction measures, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major ", "primary- modified", or "primary' streets. CONDITIONS: 1. That subsequent development plans shall be compatible with the land uses evaluated in Traffic Study No. 78. Any subsequent development proposed deemed by the City,Traffic Engineer to be outside scope of Traffic Study No. 78 shall be subject to a new traffic study. -23- COMMISSIONERS � - o May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 Jill I INDEX Amendment No. 759 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 1 so as to: A759 delete the 3 foot front yard setback designations on the (81279) southeasterly side of Sonora Street, between Seashore Drive and the public alley and on the northwesterly side of Nordin Street, Approved between Seashore Drive and the public alley; and to establish a 0 foot front yard setback on the southwesterly side of Seashore Drive, between Sonora Street and Nordina Street, in West Newport. LOCATION: Parcel A and B of Resubdivision No. 70, located at 106 -110 Sonora Street and 7207 Seashore Drive, and Parcels 1 -3 of Parcel Map 27 -4, located at 7201 -7205 Seashore Drive, on the southwesterly side of Seashore - Drive between Sonora Street and Nordina Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. 759 - All Ayes (Resolution No. 1297). MOTION CARRIED. s s s i -24- COMMISSIONERS A\tv\N May 7, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 758 item No.5 Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach A758 Municipal Code so as to revise the definition of the term "Building (R129e) Site" as it relates to the 'combining of lots and parcels" requirement. The proposed amendment consists of increasing the Approved permitted construction cost of $5,000 in any one year period for alterations to existing structures that cross property lines before a resubdivision is required. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, indicated a preference for Alternative 1 as described in the staff report. He suggested that the Commission establish a permitted construction cost and then adjust the amount annually. • Commissioner Gross expressed his support of Alternative 1 on the basis that Alternative 2 requires a determination of the cost per square footage of a building. He suggested that the permitted construction cost be established at $15,000.00 instead of $14,147.00 as indicated in the staff report. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the permitted construction cost be established at $20,000.00. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hewicker explained that $14,147.00 was determined based on the equivalent dollar value to the original $5,000.00 figure established in 1974 and the average annual increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) through 1991. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 758 (Resolution No. 1298), using Alternative 1 with the permitted construction cost set • at $20,000.00. -25- May 7, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL il Jill INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the rationale of $20,000.00 is using the example of construction costs and applying the Consumer Price Index, which has not been the case with real estate costs in the City. Commissioner Edwards further explained that by using the formula in 1974 and $5,000.00 in construction costs, and extrapolating through today, it would be in excess of $20,000.00. Commissioner Glover suggested that there needs to be a basis for a dollar figure and not an arbitrary amount. Commissioner Merrill stated that the price of construction needs to be considered. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker replied that there are non- conforming uses that extend over two lots throughout the older areas of the City. Commissioner Debay supported the motion on the basis that the CPI is used when determining lease rates. She suggested that the base figure be established on the CPI. Ayes * * * * * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. . No ' » » » ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Addl Business * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Edwards Notion All Ayes and Commissioner Gross from the May 21, 1992, Planning Edwards/ Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. cross Excused ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. Adjourn NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -26-