Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1993COPAMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING oy�o so SCE: CStOy Coo 3l Chambers or ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. - s : s EX -OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney x s : William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary • x x s Minutes of May 20, 1993 Minutes of Motion was made and voted on to approve the May 20, 1993, 5/29/93 Motion * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes s s x Public Comments: 'Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comment non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 4, 1993, in front of City Hall. • s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES hinP M 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request Mr. Hewicker requested that the following items be continued to to Continue the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1993: Item No. 4, . Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) regarding the Edgewater Place complex located at 309 Palm Street; Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 3076 (Amended) regarding the Newport Landing Restaurant located at 503 Edgewater Place; and Item No. 7, Variance No. 1187, regarding Newport Via Lido Associates and 503 Lido Partners, properties located at 3471 Via Lido and 503 - 32nd Street. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 4, 5, and 7 All Ayes to the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1993. MOTION CARRIED. s e x Resubdivision No 1000 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land Rl000 for two -unit condominium development, on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 35, Tract No. 682, located at 432 Avocado Avenue, on the southwesterly comer of Avocado Avenue and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: David O. Clark, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., Santa Ana -2- COREMSSIONERS Q 11'\ irRIMONPIRR-11wo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Inne 10. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. David Clark, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. All Ayes 1000 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "X. MOTION CARRIED. 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 the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. 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 occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared on the California Coordinate System (NAD83) and that prior to the recordation of the parcel map the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall -3- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES . r»„P t n 19Q'A ROLL CALL INDEX submit to the County Surveyor a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and the Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 2. That prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and the Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the . construction project. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. 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 or obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 5. That each dwelling unit shall he 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 6. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the comer of Avocado Avenue and Second Avenue shall be dedicated to the public. 7. That a sidewalk be constructed along the Second Avenue frontage, that a curb access ramp be constructed at the • corner of Avocado Avenue and Second Avenue, that the -4- COMMSSIONEELS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES hinn 10 1991 -- - - -• --T- ROLL CALL INDEX unused drive depression be removed and replaced with curb and gutter on the Second Avenue frontage, and that any sidewalk cracked or displaced due to construction activity on the subject site be reconstructed along the. Avocado Avenue frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. 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. 9. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded . to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 10. That the nearest power pole shall be relocated so that access into the proposed garage will not be restricted. 11. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 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. -5- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tenn 1f1 1QQA ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 1816 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which TTP1816A permitted the service of on -sale beer and wine and the operation of a 24 hour facility in the former Beachcomber Coffee Shop on Approved property located in the "Recreational and Marine Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. The application proposes the addition of live entertainment to the existing operation and the enclosure of an existing outdoor dining area at the rear of the facility. LOCATION: A portion of Lot H, Tract No. 919, located at 2633 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. . ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Christina Duggan, Newport Beach OWNER: James Parker, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, recommended that Condition No. 2 be amended to state ....However, signage shall be placed on the front of the building directing patrons to the parking lot at the rear of the property inasmuch as the parking lot located at the rear of the property is difficult to identify. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Laycock concurred that page 3 of the staff report should be corrected to state that the restaurant contains approximately 1, 920± gross square feet. Mr. Laycock explained that the parking standards are based on the "net public area" and not the gross floor area. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Christina Duggan, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and she concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 2. -6- COMMISSIONERS �0Q • F_ % s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that human sandwich boards are generally not permitted unless it was requested through a Special Events Permit. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1816 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W as amended. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the in -lieu parking spaces, Mr. Laycock explained that the applicant is required to pay for four in -lieu parking spaces at $150.00 per space per year. . In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards regarding in -lieu and off -site parking, Mr. Hewicker explained that once a year the Planning staff receives a report from the Finance Department as to the businesses that have paid for their required in -lieu parking spaces. If a business has not paid for their required parking spaces, then the Planning Department contacts the business to comply with the requirement. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. All ayes FINDINGS: 1. The amended restaurant facility is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan Development Standards, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the amended restaurant use can be adequately served . by existing on -site parking and the in -lieu parking. _7- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r.. in Inns JWlV 1V, 1 /J✓ ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to parking lot illumination, walls, and landscaping, will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties given the developed characteristics of the existing facility. 6. That the approval of this use permit will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in . the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Sign Ordinance and the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan Development Standards. No temporary "sandwich" signs or wind signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the restaurant facility. However, signage shall be placed on the front of the building directing patrons to the parking lot at the rear of the property 3. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. -8- \%x-Mlwom�\' NwN14\%;RJ%%-\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES lnne 16 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. . S. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 6. That restaurant development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping, and.parking lot illumination shall be waived. 7. That dancing shall not be permitted in conjunction with this restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. • 8. That the sound from the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure; and further that when the live entertainment is performed, all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed except when entering and leaving by the entrances of the restaurant. 9. That all restaurant employees shall be required to park in the Municipal Parking Lot at all times during the time which the restaurant is operating. 10. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be shielded or screened from West Coast Highway and from adjoining properties. 11. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1816 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 12. That a minimum of 20 parking spaces shall be provided for the subject restaurant facility (16 spaces on -site and 4 spaces by purchase of in -lieu parking on an annual basis). • -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES nine 10. 1993 ROLL CALL RVDEX 13. That a Live Entertainment Permit shall be approved by the City. 14. That the on -site parking shall be available for the parking of vehicles at all times and the storage of other than motor vehicles shall be prohibited. 15. That a Coastal Permit shall be approved prior to the implementation of the live entertainment and prior to issuance of building permits. 16. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, . safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 17. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3495 (Continued Public blearing) Item No.. Request to permit the establishment of a passive recreational park UP3495 on property located in the P -C District where a Planned Community Development Plan has not been adopted. Approved LOCATION: A portion of Block 97, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 20 El Capitan Drive, on the easterly side of El Capitan Drive, southerly of the San Joaquin Reservoir, in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. • ZONE: P -C -10- COPAMSSIONERS .00 �'lOCf�d�dfs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Line. 10. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: EPT Landscape Architecture, San Juan Capistrano OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the subject park will benefit a residential development that will be developed in an unincorporated area in the County, and it is adjacent to the Spyglass Hill residential community inside the City. When the Planned Community zoning was established several years ago there was no development plan prepared at that time for the park or the greenbelt system, and inasmuch as the City did not have a development plan, the City has allowed the property owner to proceed under the use permit process. He referred to the letter from the Spyglass Hill Community Association dated June 4, 1993, . indicating their support of the application. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained that the proposed park is adjacent to Newport Ridge, which is located in the City's Sphere of Influence. It is feasible that the area would be annexed into the City after a significant amount of construction has occurred. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding El Capitan Drive, Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, explained that in the review process of the Newport Ridge area, it was analyzed and determined that there was not a reason to extend the roadway to San Joaquin Hills Road. The Spyglass Hill Community Association has indicated their opposition to the extension of the road based on their concerns that traffic would be travelling through the neighborhood of Spyglass Hill. The City does not feel from a circulation standpoint that a roadway is necessary at this time. W. Hewicker explained that El Capitan Drive is being terminated in a knuckle northerly of the existing San Joaquin Hills Road. The portion of the right - of -way for El Capitan Drive that would normally connect with San . Joaquin Hills Road is being improved as a portion of the park. -11- COMMISSIONERS rR1P1\0N0X**-\ • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f, a1 June 10 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway stated that El Capitan Drive was originally a part of the regional circulation system and there is no mention in the staff report of the roadway being deleted. Mr. Edmonston explained that the Master Plan of Streets and Highways addresses the arterial streets within the City; however, El Capitan Drive is not included inasmuch as it is considered a local street. Under the present proposal, the City is not foregoing the right to extend the street to San Joaquin Hills Road; however, it is not anticipated to occur in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Merrill explained that the City Council previously indicated to the Spyglass Hill Community Association that El Capitan Drive would not connect with San Joaquin Hills Road. Commissioner Ridgeway stated his support of the proposed park; however, he expressed his concerns regarding the status of El Capitan Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Hewicker discussed Commissioner Ridgeway's concerns • regarding El Capitan Drive. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bill Gartland, Vice President of Land Development for The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Gartland explained that the proposed San Joaquin Hills Planned Community has been changed to Newport Ridge for marketing purposes. He addressed the Spyglass Hill Community Association's consensus on the proposed park design. It has been determined that El Capitan Drive would not be required for the buildout of the Newport Ridge project; however, the City owns the road right- of -way in perpetuity and as a condition of approval for the park project, The Irvine Company shall provide the landscape improvements within the right -of -way and has entered into a maintenance agreement with the City. The proposed park shall be a buffer between the existing Spyglass residential area and Newport Ridge. The primary components are biking and hiking trails, and scenic overlooks. The area that is adjacent to the proposed school site is 4 acres of flat turf area for potential joint use with the future elementary school. • -12- CONMUSSIONERS *01VFNF*\NtN*0\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES LmA to 1o0R ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Garland concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Mr. Gartland referred to the staff report wherein he stated that the landscaping of the park would consist of natural flora;. however, it is a combination of the four acre turf area and ornamental planting material that was incorporated at the request of the Spyglass Hill Community Association to bridge the two communities. The Irvine Company incorporated disclosures in.the real estate documents regarding the future school site and the joint use of the park. The park is going to be owned and maintained by the Newport Ridge Community Association, and The Irvine Company is deed restricting the park in their conveyance to the Community Association for the future joint use of the school. In discussions with Spyglass Hill Community Association since the entitlement stage in the 1980's, it has also been disclosed and the . Association was advised of that potential. In reference to Condition No. 6, Exhibit "A ", requesting a minimum 12 foot wide concrete sidewalk, Mr. Garland stated that residents are concerned that the width of the sidewalk would be driveable. He requested that the sidewalk width be reduced, and the construction of the sidewalk be combined with paving and turf block to address the concerns of the Spyglass Hill Community Association and to improve the aesthetics of the pathway. In reference to Condition No. 12, Exhibit "A ", regarding the future use of the park facility, Mr. Garland addressed the joint use of the park, and the potential informal play of the students from the proposed elementary school. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. . Garland suggested that the sidewalk be reduced to 6 feet wide, and if a driveable surface is necessary that a portion of the sidewalk could be constructed of a turf block. The Irvine Company would cooperate with the Public Works Department regarding the design of the trail. -13- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10. 1993 ROLL CALL nVDEX Mr. Edmonston explained that a 6 foot wide sidewalk would not be acceptable inasmuch as it is a designated bicycle trail on the Master Plan of Bikeways. State standards request a minimum of 8 feet; however, the Public Works Department considers 8 feet to. be inappropriate inasmuch as the area would be utilized by maintenance vehicles. The Public Works Department would oppose a trail narrower then 10 feet wide. A concrete surface would be an all- weather surface that would be usable at all times. Commissioner Glover expressed her concern regarding the aesthetics of concrete in the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Edmonton stated that maintenance vehicles consist of stake bed trucks for landscape maintenance purposes and pickup trucks. . Commissioner Merrill recommended a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk and to allow 2 to 3 foot wide turf block aprons on either side. Mr. Edmonston explained that if the City does not provide a minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk, the City would be exposed to an additional liability, and he addressed the erosion of the soils that exists on the property. The erosion could feasibly spill over on to the bicycle path and that is the basis for an all- weather surface. Commissioner Merrill expressed his approval of an 8 foot wide sidewalk and a 4 foot wide turf block. He said that a 12 foot wide concrete sidewalk would encourage vehicles to drive on the path. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Edmonton explained that a bicycle path is required to be an all - weather surface, i.e. cement or asphalt. Mr. Gartland explained that The Irvine Company has had success with pathways similar to the paths that he has recommended. The park will be maintained by the Newport Ridge Community Association and will not be maintained by the City. He supported an 8 foot wide all- weather surface and a 2 foot wide turf block on each side of the path. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Newport Ridge Community Association will be responsible for the easement, and he expressed -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Lmp to too'A ROLL CALL INDEX concern if the City trucks and other vehicles that are required to use the easement cannot make the necessary improvements. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that an 8 foot wide sidewalk is marginal for safe side by side bicycle traffic. The path is not designed for off -road bicycles; however, it is designed for smooth tire bicycles that do not work well on a hard surface. He addressed the durability of a concrete sidewalk. Also, a 10 foot wide sidewalk would be sensible for safe bicycle riding at decent speeds. He asked when the first phase of housing would go on sale in Newport Ridge. Mr. Gartland explained that the first project is pre - selling and the fast occupancy will be the early part of 1994. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Pion hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3495 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to modify Condition No. 6 to state a maximum 10 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Commissioner Glover expressed her concerns that the City is constructing wide concrete sidewalks and the City should also be concerned with the aesthetics of the concrete in the City. In response to comments by Chairman Edwards regarding modified Condition No. 6, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the modified condition be corrected to state minimum inasmuch as it would allow the applicant the option to construct a sidewalk less than 10 foot wide. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the proposed park is 14 -1/2 acres and the concrete sidewalk is minimal in perspective from an aesthetic point of view; that the proposed sidewalk is a bicycle trail; and the sidewalk is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He approved the suggestion that Condition No. 6 be modified to state minimum. • -15- COMMISSIONERS .op� C�C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy explained that minimum would allow a 14 foot wide sidewalk; however, the Commission is requesting that the sidewalk not be greater than 10 feet wide wherein he suggested that the condition be modified to state ..shall be a 10 . foot wide concrete sidewalk. The maker of the motion amended her motion as suggested to 10 foot wide. Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3495 Substitute lotion * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to modify .yes * * * * * * Condition No. 6 to state .a minimum of 10 feet. Chairman ao * Edwards stated that there are the issues of liability and the American with Disabilities Act. He expressed his doubt that the applicant would construct a 14 foot wide sidewalk, and a minimum of 10 feet meets the required standards. Motion was voted on, SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED. Findings- 1. The proposed park facility is consistent with the General Plan and the Harbor View Planned Community Development Standards, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact, inasmuch as natural flora is proposed in a majority of the park. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. -16- CORUMISSIONERS 401 14MM, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10 1993 ROLL CALL. INDEX Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved, revised site plan/landscape plan, except as. noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the Irvine Company or its assigns (as approved by the City) shall execute an Agreement with the City of Newport Beach which will provide for the construction and maintenance of the proposed park improvements to be constructed within the City boundary and within the 64 foot wide El Capitan Drive right -of -way and shall hold the City harmless from liability caused from the existence of these . improvements. 4. That the water used on the subject site shall be paid for by the Irvine Company or its assigns. This agreement shall be executed prior to the start of any construction work within the City boundary. 5. 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. 6. That the trail from the end of El Capitan Drive between Point Conception Way and San Joaquin Hills Road shall be a minimum 10 foot wide concrete sidewalk designed to allow maintenance vehicles and bicycles to use the facility. The trail must also meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for slopes, landings and ramps. The design shall be subject to further approval by the Public . Works Department and the Building Department. NOTE: -17- • ���o��'io�oso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r,,,.e In 1 oaz ROLL CALL INDEX The City of Newport Beach's Circulation and Recreation and Open Space Elements show a bike trail in this area. 7. That the material composing the upper trail meet ADA_ standards and be able to accommodate maintenance vehicles. (If decomposed granite surface is used, it must be shown to meet ADA Standards). 8. That a drainage swale /curb shall be installed adjacent to the El Capitan sidewalk to intercept runoff from the adjacent slope with the design subject to the approval of the Public Works Department, 9. That a park drainage plan be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department and be implemented to provide sufficient drainage facilities to eliminate surface . erosion in the park area. 10. That a landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be approved by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, Public Works, and Planning Departments. Said plan shall be consistent with the provisions of Chapter 14.17, Water Efficient Landscaping of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 11. That all trees installed adjacent to the sidewalk along the San Joaquin Hills Road frontage shall be on the City's approved tree list unless otherwise approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department and that a root barrier system shall be installed to prevent tree roots from growing under the sidewalks. 12. That the future use of the park facility for active recreational purposes shall be prohibited unless an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan and to this use permit is approved by the City. -18- COUMSSIONERS • 41,� WNWM%_\*140 C ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10 1993 .4 ROLL CALL INDEX 13. That no lighting shall be permitted within the park facility unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 14. That the traffic gates located at the fire access road between El Capitan Drive and Terrace Ridge shall be constructed so pedestrian and bicycle access is maintained at all times. 15. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. . Use Permit No 3122 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing Item No Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3122A permitted the construction of the Edgewater Place complex including a full service restaurant and bar on the second and third Cont ' d floors with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment; a to 6/24/93 take -out restaurant and a variety of retail uses on the ground floor; and the Edgewater Place parking structure. The proposed amendment includes: a request to permit the construction of a vehicle ramp from the ground floor of the parking structure to the basement; a re- configuring of the number and location of parking spaces within the parking structure; the conversion of the third floor restaurant/bar to office use; and the reduction of the off - street parking requirement for the remaining second floor restaurant to one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area." An exception to the Sign Code is also requested inasmuch as two direction signs to the parking structure exceed the permitted 6 sq. ft. area, and one of the signs contains the name of the Newport Landing Restaurant. LOCATION: Lots 1 -3, 7 -12, an unnumbered lot, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; and . Lots 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside -19- .4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T -,. in 1001 to ROLL CALL INDEX Tract, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue, between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANT: BA Properties, Los Angeles OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) be continued to the June 24, 1993, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time for the property owners of the Newport Landing Restaurant and the Edgewater Place complex to review the proposed development. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3122 All Ayes (Amended) to the June 24, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No 3076 (Amended)_ (Continued Public Hearing) Item No Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3076A permitted the establishment of the Newport Landing Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment and off -site 6/24/93 parking on property located in the RSC -R District. The proposed amendment includes: a request to establish a new off - street parking requirement for the restaurant based on additional off -site parking spaces being provided by the owners of the Edgewater Place Development; the removal of the previously approved handicapped parking spaces from the Newport Landing Restaurant site; and the approval of an amended Off -site Parking Agreement consistent with the revised parking figures. -20- to CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T,,,,< in iooz ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 196 -38 (Resubdivision No. 765), located at 503 Edgewater Place, on the southeasterly corner of Edgewater Place and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANT: Landing Associates, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that Use Permit No. 3076 (Amended) be continued to the June 24, 1993, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time for the property owners of the Newport Landing Restaurant and the Edgewater Place complex to review the proposed development. Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3076 Motion * (Amended) to the June 24, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. All Ayes MOTION CARRIED. s s s Use Permit No. 3491 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No Request to permit a recreational establishment with approximately UP3491 30 pool tables as well as incidental dining and the service of on- sale alcoholic beverages, including a full service bar on property Denied located in the RSC -H District. The proposal also includes a request to approve an off -site parking arrangement for a portion of the required off - street parking and the approval of a full time valet parking service. The request to establish the proposed billiard center also represents a conversion of a portion of the building from a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR which also requires the approval of a Use Permit. -21- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T.... In 1002 - ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 2, Parcel Map 60-43 (Resubdivision No. 433) located at 3366 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido, between Via Oporto and Via Malaga, adjacent to Lido Marina Village. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Yros Marderos, Hollywood OWNER: Swiss Group Property Inc., Irvine William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to Condition No. 15, Exhibit "A', regarding the unused drive approach at the off -site parking lot. Mr. Laycock explained that the two driveways are being used, and the proposed parking layout . submitted by the applicant has an incorrect parking layout. He suggested that Condition No. 15 be removed from Exhibit "A". The public bearing was opened in connection with this item. No one appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. John Hanron, 3471 Via Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Newport Via Lido Associates, owners of Via Lido Plaza across Via Lido from the subject establishment. Mr. Hanron expressed the Associate's concerns regarding the valet parking service, and the impact that the daytime business would have on the parking spaces in Via Lido Plaza. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Hanron explained that the property owner of Via Lido Plaza is less concerned during the evening hours. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff discouraged the applicant from filing the application on the basis that the applicant does not have the required parking, and the . establishment is in close proximity to residential uses. -22- COrMUSSIONERS 00PONA d��s� 0N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3491. Ayes - * * subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. No FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed billiards center and related restaurant use represent an intensification of use on the property which is unacceptable inasmuch as the subject building and related parking design was not originally constructed for the purpose of housing such a use with a valet parking service. 2. That the use of valet parking for the proposed use will increase the potential for patrons of the facility to park at . curbside parking spaces and thereby further impact the demand for public parking, in an area that has a demonstrated lack of public parking opportunities. 3. That the subject property does not provide adequate off - street parking for the proposed use. 4. That the proposed billiards center and related off -site parking is not compatible with the adjacent and nearby residential uses, inasmuch as the applicant intends to operate the facility until 3:00 am. on Friday and Saturday and 2:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday, which will intrude upon the peace and quiet of the residential uses during late night and early morning periods. S. The approval of Use Permit No. 3491 will, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. -23- M N 40 �od� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES • 1n 1001 .? ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1187 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No Request to reduce the number of required off - street parking V1167 spaces which are provided for an existing office building located ' at 503 32nd Street and which are located at an off -site location at Cont d to the rear of the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center in the RSC -H 6/24/93 District. .Under the existing parking arrangement, 24 restricted parking spaces are provided to the customers and business invitees of the office building. The applicants propose to reduce the number of required off- street parking spaces to 12 and remove the existing use restriction so as to allow tenants and employees of the office building to also use the off -site parking spaces. The proposal also includes a request to amend a previously approved Off -site Parking Agreement consistent with the revised parking figures. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85 -1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located 3471 Via Lido, on the northwesterly corner of Via Lido and Via Oporto (parking site); and Lot 6, Tract No. 907, located at 503 32nd Street, on the northeasterly corner of 32nd Street and Via Oporto, (building site), in Central Newport. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANTS: Newport Via Lido Associates and 503 Lido Partners, Ltd., Orange and Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicants have requested that Variance No. 1187 be continued to the June 24, 1993, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to prepare for the public hearing and distribute additional information to staff for final preparation of the staff report. -24- .? COD IISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1187 to All Ayes the June 24, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Variance No. 1188 (Public Hearing) stem No:, Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing single visas family dwelling on property located in the R -1.5 District which will result in the structure exceeding the maximum allowable buildable Approved area. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the addition to the ground floor garage and the second floor master bedroom to encroach 20 inches into a required three foot street side yard setback. The proposal also . includes modifications to the Zoning Code to permit one architectural balcony guardrail on the second floor to encroach 20t inches into the required 3 foot street side yard setback and two similar guardrails to encroach 9± inches into the 3 foot interior side yard setback. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 2, Section 1, Balboa Island, located at 101 North Bay Front, on the southeasterly corner of North Bay Front and Park Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Rod Jeheber, Newport Beach OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Miller, Balboa Island The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Rod Jeheber, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. W. Jeheber explained that the proposal would make better use of the existing square footage of the building. The master bedroom would be increased and more usable, and to construct a roof deck at the front of house would provide a better -25- Love-) 7 1Jel - - • I Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r.,, o 1n 1001 ROLL CALL INDEX view of the harbor. In reference to a letter from Mr. Edgar Williams, 105 North Bay Front, regarding his concern of air circulation and light, Mr. Jeheber explained that only the roof deck would be moved forward. He further stated that the. proposed window would be constructed over the garage and would not invade the privacy of Mr. Williams. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Jeheber concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'; however, in reference to Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A ", regarding an encroachment into the required 3 foot side yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue, Mr. Jeheber explained that the purpose is to provide additional space in the garage. The owner would be willing to give up the encroachment into the side yard setback so as to provide additional sight distance for pedestrians at the alley. In reference to Condition No. 6, Exhibit "A ", regarding landscaping located in the sight distance plane along the Park Avenue frontage, Mr. Jeheber asked if the owner would be required to remove the palm trees. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, responded that the City's sight distance requirements provide for trees as long as they are not so numerous that they create a picket fence' affect. The condition addresses hedges or similar landscaping that would obstruct sight distance. Commissioner Glover addressed alternate Condition No. 2, Exhibit "A", requesting that the proposed additions to the structure shall be limited to 161 t square feet. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Jeheber explained the proposed plans to enlarge the existing garage at the rear of the property. Mr. Hewicker explained that the existing garage takes access from the alley at the rear of the property, and the existing carport takes access from the side street (Park Avenue). The original proposal was to widen the carport to allow two automobiles off of Park Avenue which would have eliminated one on- street parking space. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the proposed widening of the garage would provide approximately 47 square feet of additional area. Mr. Laycock stated that alternate . Condition No. 2, Exhibit "A", does not include the proposed -26- COMMSSIONERs d�q'Po3�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH hme 10. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX expansion of the garage. Staffs recommended Alternate Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A ", states that "the ground floor garage encroachment into the required 3 foot side yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue shall not be permitted" because of the site. distance concerns of widening the garage adjacent to the street intersection to the alley. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Jebebrr discussed the applicant's response in the Statement of Support comparing the subject project with the variance that was granted at 100 South Bay Front. Mr. Laycock explained that the difference in the buildable area of the two properties is that the subject property has a front yard setback of 10 feet and the required front yard setback at 100 South Bay Front is 5 feet. Mr. Laycock stated that he was not aware that a variance was allowed to increase the buildable area at 100 South Bay Front inasmuch as the property originally had more buildable area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner DiSano regarding the foregoing Alternate Conditions No. 2 and No. 4, Exhibit "A ", Mr. Jeheber replied that to comply with the conditions it would be necessary to modify the proposed plans. In reference to alternate Condition No. 5 stating that the second floor balconies and handrails adjacent to the dining room shall not be permitted to encroach into the required 3 foot interior side yard setback, Mr. Jeheber explained that the balconies are proposed to enhance a Mediterranean design and would not invade the privacy of the adjacent neighbor; however, the requested balconies could be deleted from the structure's design. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Jeheber replied that the aesthetics of the handrails are secondary to the safety factor. Commissioner Merrill expressed his concerns regarding the bulk of the existing structure and the proposed square footage would add to the bulk of the building. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. _27_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T,..,. in i ooz ROLL CALL INDEX Jeheber discussed the structure design so as to comply with aforementioned Alternate Condition No. 2. Commissioner Pomeroy emphasized his attempt to modify the Floor Area Ratios in the City to accommodate larger buildings on small lots so the City does not continue to have variances. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Jeheber explained that the only way to meet the safety requirements on the balconies is to provide the proposed handrails unless the proposed French doors would be replaced with windows. Mr. Ed Williams, 105 North Say Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. He referred to his letter to the Commission dated June 2, 1993, and to respond to earlier testimony regarding . his property that he rebuilt in 1950. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there is no policy at the City level to address the issue. The project is at the outer envelope of approving; however, there is precedent set by other structures and staff attempted to distinguish between buildable area in the envelope to ratios to the land to show the massing. He stated that be was not inclined to approve the project as presented; however, the City should address the issue as a larger policy so as to remove the variances that are creating the problem. He encouraged the applicant to redesign the project. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support Alternative Condition No. 2, Exhibit "A", limiting the addition to 161± square feet, and with the recommendation that the applicant would accommodate the additional 47 feet in the garage for clearance purposes. -28- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T „no 1n 1OOR ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Commissioner DiSano made a motion to approve Variance No. 1188 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", to modify the following findings and conditions as stated in the staff report: Condition No. 2, Finding No. 4, Condition No. 4, Finding No. 6, and Condition No. 5. He said that the modifications would allow 161± square feet and would be consistent with the findings. Commissioner Gifford supported the motion. She explained that she felt strongly about any encroachment in the interior side yard given that the side yards are narrow, and the adjacent neighbor has expressed concern. All ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. . Findings: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District inasmuch as the subject property is smaller than the typical lot on Balboa Island and maintains an irregular triangular shape. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size, bulk and height to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. That the granting of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially -29- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 1n 1001 ROLL CALL INDEX detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood 4. That the granting of the modification to the Zoning Code to allow a portion of the proposed garage addition to encroach 20± inches into the required side yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in, the neighborhood, and further that such modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. . 5. That the granting of the modification to the Zoning Code to allow a portion of the second floor master bedroom addition and related architectural balcony and handrail to encroach 20± inches into the required side yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue, will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood, and further that such modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 6. That the granting of the modification to the Zoning Code to allow the two architectural balconies and handrails to encroach 9# inches into the required three foot interior side yard setback will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the 10 particular case be materially detrimental to the public -30- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Linp 1A 1001 ROLL CALL INDEX welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood, and further that such modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 7. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 8. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed additions to the existing structure shall be limited to 161 ± square feet and the maximum permitted gross floor area shall not exceed 2,252 square feet. 3. That the second floor master bedroom addition and related architectural balcony and handrail shall be permitted to encroach 20 inches and 9± inches respectively, into the required 3 foot side yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue. The ground floor garage encroachment 4. That the ground floor garage encroachment into the required 3 foot side yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue shall not be permitted. 5. The second floor architectural balconies and protective handrails adjacent to the dining room shall not be permitted to encroach into the required 3 foot interior side yard setback. -31- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r11nP. to 199; ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That the landscaping located in the sight distance plane along the Park Avenue frontage adjacent to the alley shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height as defined in the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L. 7. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Mr. Hewicker explained that when the residential building height . limit was amended to the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone, that permitted an average roof height of 24 feet with a maximum ridge height of 29 feet. The roof heights and restrictions were designed to allow basically a generous two story building with flexibility of high ceiling heights, and two story elevations. The trend appears to be minimum ceiling heights so as to construct 3 story buildings in single family and two family residential areas, and he suggested that the Commission could give staff direction if there was a concern with respect to the issue. Mr. Hewicker addressed Commissioner Pomeroy's concerns regarding "mansionization" and higher Floor Area Ratios on smaller lots. In reference to Variance No. 1188, he was given the impression that the Commission thought the structure was too large and if so, why would the City want to change the regulations on small lots as opposed to reviewing the applications individually. Commissioner Pomeroy said that it was his opinion, based on housing prices and lot sizes, that the closer lots are located to the bay or the ocean the more interest residents desire larger dwelling units because property owners are wanting a specific amount of . space to live in, and as property values go up, it becomes a -32- +VA0WA0Q6\Nk-\40 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Iull.�liFY —� 111nA 10 1441 ROLL CALL INDEX function of economics. He suggested that the City consider what was occurring when the 24/28 Height Limitation Ordinance was approved in 1972, and the changes that have transpired subsequent to when the City was occupied by many part time residents. He stated that he has a concern about maximum size dwelling units on large single family lots wherein he suggested to recognize a small lot problem by allowing a greater amount of floor area on the smaller lots because "mansionization' on a big lot is not as compatible in the neighborhood than more floor area on the small beach -type lots. Commissioner Merrill stated that when a large structure is allowed on a small lot then the lot's value is raised to make it less affordable to many people. Commissioner Merrill concurred with Mr. Hewicker's foregoing comments. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that staff also consider access to a roof deck wherein he made recommendations that would eliminate requests for third story development. Discussion Items: Discussi, Items General Plan Amendment 93 -2 No. 1 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General GPA 93 -2 Plan as follows: A. Loral Aerospace Property: Request of Ford Motor Land A. Loral Development Corporation to amend the General Plan Aerospac Land Use Element to re- designate the Loral Aerospace Property property (formerly Ford Aeronutronic) from Generdl Industry to Single Family Detached /Attached in order to initiate allow conversion of the property to a residential planned community not to exceed 500 dwelling units. Consideration of this amendment may include the General Plan . Recreation and Open Space Element, if necessary. -33- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Lena to low [LOLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, replied that the property consists of 99 acres. Commissioner Merrill concluded that the project would consist of 5 dwelling units per acre. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Bob Wynn appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Ford Motor Land Development Co. Mr. Wynn explained that 500 dwelling units would be comparable to the Belcourt development, and the applicant is currently favoring detached structures. Ms. Temple explained that the specifics of the project will be forthcoming in greater detail with the formal application associated with the General Plan. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that it is feasible that the proposed development would he constructed with fewer than 500 units when the application comes back to the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has a desire to develop a variety of residential sites and residential types on their property which would reflect what is on the adjoining site. x Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan Motion All Ayes Amendment 93 -2 (A) Loral Aerospace Property. Commissioner Glover commented that she was pleased that the applicant is considering detached housing inasmuch as it has almost become unique to construct that type of residential development. MOTION CARRIED. B. CalTrans West: Request of the Committee for Acquisition GPA 93 -2 of CalTrans West to amend the General Plan Land Use (B) and Recreation and Open Space Elements and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to re- designate the CalTrans property on the northwesterly comer of West Coast West Highway and Superior Avenue, known as CalTrans West, from Multi - Family Residential to Recreational and Not Initiate Environmental Open Space. -34 COMNBSSIONERS 0\1 , V \00MMI k\\1%0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lu TnnP 1n 1QQR ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner DiSano requested a clarification of the letter dated June 10, 1993, from the Department of Transportation to the Planning Department. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that to rezone the property back to Open Space would; potentially be a breach of an agreement that the City has with the Department of Transportation. At the very least it would be a breach of good faith in the City's dealing with Cal -Trans and the agreement that they entered into for the realignment of Superior Avenue with the benefits that the City gained in the consideration of that agreement. In response to .a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Ms. Flory explained why it could be detrimental to the City if there would be a breach of an agreement. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that he was not aware of a proposal by the City to purchase Cal -Trans West, and if there . is a Committee to purchase Cal -Trans West, there is nothing to prevent a private individual or a group of individuals from attempting to purchase the property. Chairman Edwards concurred that there is nothing to prevent a private party from attempting to purchase the property directly from Cal- Trans. He stated that he would not support initiation of the Amendment. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred with Chairman Edwards. He commented that the state of the law and the letter has convinced him that the Commission should not address the issue. He urged the Committee to approach Cal -Trans inasmuch as there are other methods to put the issue on the ballot for funding. The Commission would be inclined to designate the property for open space but not at the expense of the City of Newport Beach. He stated that he would not support to initiate the Amendment. Motion Commissioner Glover made a motion to not initiate General Plan Amendment 93 -2 (B) CalTrans West. In response to comments made by Commissioner Glover regarding the request of the soCommittee for Acquisition of CalTrans West, Mr. Hewicker -35- COMMISSIONERS Ns CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I1 ►111\111kN 9 nine U1 199A ROLL CALL INDEX explained that the Council Policy allows an individual or a group of individuals to request the Planning Commission or City Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment, typically if a property owner initiates or makes the request. Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion. Ms. Louise Greeley appeared before the Planning Commission to state that there is wide- spread interest to acquire the .subject property, including several homeowner associations. She stated that it was their desire to negotiate a price for CalTrans West and the City would be in a better position than a group of citizens. Commissioner Gifford stated that changing the zoning to improve the citizens negotiation position is something that the Commission is not prepared to endorse based on previous comments nor is the issue something that the City Attorney feels would be an appropriate action in terms of the City's legal position. The Commission is not expressing an opinion as to whether or not it would be desirable if ultimately it were open space and it was available to the City. She supported the motion. All Ayes Motion was voted on to not initiate General Plan Amendment 93- 2 (B). MOTION CARRIED. C. Recreation and Marine Commercial Designation: Request GPA 93 -2C to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Rec & Plan to revise the Recreation and Marine Commercial land Marine use designation to eliminate the requirement for the Comm 11 provision of incentive uses in association with the Designa- construction of general purpose office and General tion Industrial uses. Initiated In response to Commissioner Merrill's questions of what was the . original thinking regarding marine incentive uses, and were the -36- CONEWSSIONVSRS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX developers given extra footage when the projects were approved, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained that the marine incentive use was initially enacted as a part of the Local Coastal Program, and certified by the Coastal Commission in the early 1980's. The incentive system was an attempt to encourage the maintenance of marine related business and industry in the City, particularly the waterfront areas. The incentive offer was not one of square footage and no additional square footage has ever been granted on the basis of marine related uses. The incentive at that time was the ability to occupy a portion of the building with either general industry, general purpose office, or general retail. Subsequent to that time, when the City amended the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, the City altered the Recreation and Marine Commercial category in a minor way to shift general retail from that category that required incentive to just a permitted use category. So currently the only time in current development, or even in the existing buildings constructed under the old requirement, is required to maintain marine incentive uses would be if they wish to occupy a portion of the building with general office or general industry. Commissioner Merrill and Ms. Temple discussed the purpose for the marine incentive use at the time that it was originally approved, and the request to revise the current land use designation to eliminate the requirement for the provision of incentive uses. Commissioner Gifford stated that she would support the initiation, however, she expressed a concern of what affect an amendment would have on the existing marine - related businesses that were set up by the property owners under favorable terms. Commissioner DiSano commented that the leases the businesses entered into would remain in affect until the leases expired. Commissioner Glover stated that the Mariners Mile Business Association is supporting the General Plan Amendment, and after discussing the issue with staff, the business owners believe that the results will be something better than what currently exists. -37- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Linn In 1QQ1 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway supported the motion. He stated that the property owners have indicated that there has been a reduction in property values, and he referred to the negative conditions that have existed at Corporate Plaza. Chairman Edwards stated that be was not certain that the initiation of the request would address the problem inasmuch as it is a market problem and he concurred with Commissioner Ridgeway's comments regarding Corporate Plaza. Motion Motion was voted on to initiate General Plan Amendment 93 -2 Ayes * (C). MOTION CARRIED. No s s s . D. Block 600 - Newport Center: Request of Family Fitness Centers and The Irvine Company to amend the General GPA 93 -2 (D) Block Plan Land Use Element to increase the development 600 - allocation in Block 600 of Newport Center by 5,000 square Newport feet (to a total of 1,285,329 square feet) to allow additions Center to 600 Newport Center Drive for athletic club purposes. initiated INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan Motion Amendment 93 -2 (D). MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes s s s -38- COMMISSIONERS • `Gy'p't- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 10. 1993 ?OLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 780 No. 2 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code A780. , so as to increase the rear yard setback for required parking spaces on residential property when a side property line of a residential set f03 lot is located across an alley from the subject property. The public proposed amendment also includes a request to permit a zero foot hearinc 7/8/93. rear yard setback adjacent to alleys with widths of 24 feet or more. Discussion between staff and the Commission followed following comments by Commissioner Pomeroy that if the setbacks adjacent to alleys are revised, would the buildable area change. Mr. Hewicker explained that the request only addresses additional setbacks for parking spaces adjacent to alleys, and the permitted buildable area on lots would not be affected. . Mr. Laycock explained that the Public Works Department has requested that only six inch curbs be permitted where the side property lines of lots are located across narrow alleys from garage spaces on the opposite side of alleys. However, this eliminates any walls for privacy. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Laycock stated that the Public Works Department has requested that the following sentence in the staff report be included in the proposed amendment: In all situations. the minimum distance between the rear of a required parking space/garage door, and a wall or other obstruction across the alley shall not be less than 20 feet, with 24 feet being the recommended distance. Staff indicated that the sentence would not be workable inasmuch as it would require the Planning staff to visit the site to inspect the property in question to ensure that there are no obstructions on the opposite side of the alley within 20 feet of a required parking space. However, in response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, staff responded that the parry that is primarily concerned with the issue is the City Engineer. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, explained that there are times when the Zoning Code . does not fully address every situation that exists regarding -39- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r,,,,o In 1001 ROLL CALL INDEX accessibility into garage spaces on narrow alleys. The Public Works Department's concern is that with the existing situation, there is the potential that where garages are located, it can be impossible to get in and out of garage spaces because the alley is so narrow . and the garage setback is not adequate. The subject amendment would make the garages more usable rather than encourage them to be filled up with storage. Commissioner Gifford commented that the amendment could be an 'over kill' for a problem that could exist only from time to time in certain situations. Mr. Edmonston stated that there is a resolution that the City Council passed many years ago that addresses setbacks from alleys and in theory, only use up to 10 feet of the alley for the required aisleway. If the resolution would literally be enforced, then garages might have to be set back as much as 10 to 14 feet. There are conflicting regulations in the Municipal Code, and the subject . amendment is an attempt to resolve the issue. In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hewicker commented that in the 1970's there was a survey by the Code Enforcement Office to go to each property and to inspect the garages in the City. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there are ways around the concerns without creating the proposed setbacks. Motion Commissioner Pomeroy made a motion to set Amendment No. 780 for public hearing on July 8, 1993. Commissioner Glover stated that she would support the request because of the safety factor. In response to a question posed by Mr. Uycock, the maker of the motion recommended that the foregoing statement suggested by the Public Works Department be removed from the proposed amendment. Ayes * * * * * Motion was voted on to set the item for public hearing on July 8, Noes * * 1993. MOTION CARRIED. -40- i �lk QQ \41 r AMNON %ky \to CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES innP 10 199'; ROLL CALL INDEX sss ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 p.m. ndjourr HARRY MERRILI, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -41-