The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/01/1976COMMISSIONERS Dm % m m ROLL CALL 2 Present Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 p.m. Date: July 1, 1976 MINUTES INDEX X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director.- Planning David Dmohowski, Senior Planner Joanne Bader, Secretary X Motion was made that the Planning Commission's X X X X annual election of officers be continued to the X X meeting of August 5, 1976, at which time it is I assumed that the new Commissioners will be seated and all Commissioners will be present. X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 17, 1976 X X X X were approved as written. X X Item #1 Request to divide an existing parcel into two parcels for commercial- office development, and RESUB- for landscape purposes. DIVISIO NO. 524 Location: A portion of Block 0 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 464 San. APPROVE Nicholas Drive on the southwesterly CONDI- corner of Avocado Avenue and San TIONALL Nicholas Drive in Newport Center. Zone: C -O -H Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and Paul Thakur of The Irvine Company appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. He then offered to -1- COMMISSIONERS T = 9 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES N ROLL CALL 2 July 1 , 1976 - INDEX answer any questions the Commission may have. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed: Motion i X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X X following findings: Absent X X 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or sub- stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. That the design of the subdivision or 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 subdivision. 7. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed i I by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 524, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all public improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the remaining portion of the nine- foot wide sidewalk along San Nicholas Drive be -2- COMMISSIONERS m a m 9 m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VA x m >t x • 1 p MINUTES ROLL CALL i July 1, 1976 0 Motion Ayes Absent • INDEX completed and an appropriate three -foot wide easement be dedicated. 4. That all connections for water and sewer service be accomplished in a manner satis- factory to the Public Works Department. 5. That the water capital improvement acreage fee be paid. 6. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir .equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. Item #2 Request for site plan review of a commercial SITE building with retail sales area on the ground PLAN floor and office space on the upper floor with REVIEW adjacent parking areas in a Specific Plan Area N0. 1. where a specific plan has not been adopted. CONT. TO Location: Lots 23 and 24, and the westerly JULY 15, 20.5 feet of Lot 22, Block 230 of 97' 76— Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach, located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, on the southeast corner of 30th Street and Newport Boulevard, in Cannery Village. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Myrna M. and Francis M. Delaney, Newport Beach Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Reed, Newport Beach X Planning Commission continued this matter to the X X X X meeting of July 15, 1976. X X Item #3 Request to change the operational characteristics USE PER - of an existing restaurant (Coco's) to include the MIT NO. service of beer and wine. 793 3 Location: Lot 1 of Tract 4225, located at APPROVED 2131 Westcliff Drive on the southeast CONDI- corner of Irvine Avenue and Westcliff TIONALLY Drive in Newport Beach. -3- • COMMISSIONERS II Dk X m { A m p , A �i 0 July Motion Ayes Absent A on Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 1, 1976 INDEX Zone: C -N -H Applicant: Far West Services, Inc., Irvine Owner: Oakview Investment, Inc., Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission discussed the proximity of this business to the high school. X At this time the applicant arrived at the meeting, X X X X so a motion was made to reopen the public hearing.. X Gene Coda, Supervisor with Far West Services, Inc. appeared before the Planning.Commission and advised that he had not yet read the staff report. X Motion was made to continue this item till later X X X X in the meeting to allow the applicant time to X X review the staff report. This matter resumed following Agenda Item No. 5. Gene Coda, Supervisor with Far West Services, Inca reappeared before the Planning Commission and apologized for being late to the meeting. Mr. Coda explained that he thought the meeting began at 7:30 p.m. He then advised that he had read the findings and conditions of approval as recommended by staff and concurs with them. I There being no others desiring to appear and be. heard`, the public hearing was closed. X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the X X X X following findings: X X 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off- street parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development. 3. The proposed service of beer and.wine will not be detrimental to any surrounding.land uses. -4- COMMISSIONERS • �? m a X T O ROLL CALL z 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 1, 1976 MINUTES I Kul nFV 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1793 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 i detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 5. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. and approve Use Permit No. 1793, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, elevations, floor plans, and parking plan. 2. That a minimum of one parking space per 40 sq. ft. of "net public area" shall be provided. A joint use agreement shall be executed and filed with the City, providing Coco's with the non - exclusive use of 82 spaces. 3. All storage of cartons, containers and trash shall be shielded from a view within a building or within an area enclosed by a wall or fence not less than six feet in height. 4. All employees shall be permitted to park . in the joint -use lot. Items Nos. 4 Request to expand an existing bank facility by and 5 the addition of a temporary structure. USE PER- AND MIT NO. -791 4 Request to resubdivide two existing lots to accommodate the expansion of the Bank of Newport and facilities. RESUB- Location: A portion of Block 93 of Irvine's DIVISION Subdivision located at 2200 East NO. 525 Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive APPROVED ONE DI- in Corona del Mar. TT TONALLY -5- COMMISSIONERS - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m � m ➢ x f • � n T A Yni� r'e�� - July 1 1976 , MINUTES INDEX Zone: P -C Applicant: Bank of Newport, Newport Beach.. I i Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach i Assistant Director - Planning Hewicker advised the Planning Commission of a fourth condition of.approval staff would like to recommend, i.e.., that the termination of this Use Permit shall coincide with the termination of Use Permit No. 1759 (which was the last Use Permit that the Planning Commission considered with .respect to the temporary use of the existing buildings that. are on the site). Mr. Hewicker then advised that Use Permit No. 1759 will expire in August of 1977. Public hearing was opened in connection with Use Permit No. 1794 and Resubdivision No. 525 and there being no one desiring to appear and • be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion.was made that Planning Commission make Ayes X! X X X the following findings concerning Use Permit Absent IX X No. 1794: 1. That the proposed development does not conflict with the General Plan. 2. That adequate parking presently exists on the site. 3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1794 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, I comfort and general welfare of people residing or working in the neighborhood. j and approve Use .Permit No. 1794, subject to the i following conditions: 1. That Resubdivision No. 525 be approved. 2. That landscape plans be reviewed and approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. Particular attention should • be.paid to the appearance of the structure from East Coast Highway. 3. That the building meet all of the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m x m a x • ; p A MINUTES x Qnu CAI i July 1 , 1976 INDEX 4. That the termination of this Use Permit shall coincide with the termination of Use Permit No. 1759. Motion i X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X X following findings concerning Resubdivision Absent XX No. 525: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. • 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or 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 subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in.or add to any violation of existing require- ments prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) I of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 525, subject to the • following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 496 be fulfilled. -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 1, 1976, ROLL CALL 2 0 Motion Ayes Absent • INDEX !Voluntary Request to use an existing storage area as a "Senior Exchange" to sell handcrafted items and small antiques in conjunction with the existing Action Center and Community Center. Location: Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 117, Item #6 USE PER - MIT N0: 1795 APPROVED CONDI- Section A, Located at 1714 W. Balboa TIONALLY Boulevard, between 17th Street and 18th Street on the Balboa Peninsula. Zone: R -3 Applicant: Voluntary Action Center, South Orange County, Newport Beach Owner: The City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and Catherine Winter, member of the Executive Committee of the Voluntary Action Center, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the findings and conditions of approval recommended by staff. In answer to a question by the Planning.Commission, Ms. Winter advised that they do not expect a great volume of activity and advised that they expect their major.clientele to be their.volunteers. She further advised that the major publicity will be word of mouth. She stated that the building is very difficult to get to.and that she.doesn't. expect drop -in trade. She advised that she expects people to come into the shop if they are at the. Voluntary Action Center for another purpose. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the X X X X (following findings: X 1. That the proposed development is compatible with th.e surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking is being provided on- site. 3. That the short -term lease arrangement precludes. any conflicts with the General Plan. -8- COMMISSIONERS a S 4 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AA MINUTES ROLL CALL z July 1, 1976 0 INDEX 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1795 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 neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1795, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this approval shall extend for a period . of time not to exceed the terms of the lease. 2. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 3. That all signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Item #7 Request for structural alterations and room and USE PER - garage additions to two existing single - family MIT .NO. dwellings, in the C -1 District. 796 Location: Lots 9 and 10, Block 21 of the Newport CONT. TO Beach Tract located at 106 and. 108 AUG. 5, 22nd Street in the McFadden Square 97� 6 Specific Plan Area. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Dell M. Williams, Corona del Mar Owner: Dr. C. W. Ackerman, Corona del Mar Community Development Director Hogan advised that the staff report recommends that the Planning Commission deny this application, particularly since it is in conflict with the General Plan and the Specific Area Plan has not yet been developed. He further advised that when the Specific Area Plan is developed it will not include these particular uses. However, if the Planning Commission, after conducting its public hearing,.does desire to approve this particular application, staff has prepared a set of -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m r .4 m • p A MINUTES x Re LL -CALL i July 1, 1976 INDEX conditions and findings that staff would like to recommend to the Commission for its consideration in granting that approval. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and Dell Williams, the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and advised that they are trying to clean up a bad situation, a fire hazard and probably a policing problem. He further advised that everything they are proposing, in his opinion, would alleviate problems rather than create them. He stated that they can see the staff's point of view in that this does not conform with the designated use of the C -1 zone and the long -range planning of the area ;' however, the concrete block structure has been under continuous residential use since its construction in the early 50's and the two neigh- bors on the other side of the properties have been in continuous residential use for many years also, so they are not introducing something new. • He advised that they are simply trying to make a good situatio.n out of a bad one. With particular emphasis to the little Victorian house, Mr.. Williams advised that from an architect's point of view, he feels it is definitely worth salvaging. He stated that they have demolished sub- standard facilities in the house and plan to put in up -to -code kitchen, bath and bedroom facilities along with improving the existing shell to meet code requirements and.the desires of the City. He advised that they will continue to work with staff and further advised that they. have no objections to any of the conditions that staff is recommending in the event this i application is approved. In respo.nse to a request by the Planning Commission for amplification of Mr. Williams' comment that, as an-architect, he would like to see the Victorian building saved, Mr. Williams advised that he believes the building was, constructed between 1840 and 1890 and that he. I has heard that it was constructed outside of the community and moved in as one of the first structures here. He stated that the building is constructed almost entirely of redwood, that the . framing and detailing of the framing construction is excellent and that the house is very sound structurally. He stated that it has not sagged_ and the basic shell has not shown the effects of -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • a j° MINUTES x o July 1, 1976 ROLL CALL z this age at all. He stated that they would renovate the basic shell and to the rear of that, where it would not be visible to the street, put in the modern conveniences. He stated that, at the present time, the parking for 108 22nd Street is simply the sand lot at the rear of the property, and for 106 22nd Street the parking is directly off of 22nd Street. He stated that they are proposing to give both of these properties, at the rear, off of the alley, two -car enclosed garages. In response to a question by the Planning Commission as to whether there is any suggestion as to whether this building has any historical significance, Mr. Williams answered that, although he cannot document it, he believes this is one of the very first buildings in Newport Beach. Assistant Director - Planning Hewicker then stated that staff has contacted the Newport Beach Historical Society and they are trying to document what the significance of this particular structure is. He added that staff has not yet_ received any feedback from the Society. Mr. Williams advised that the workmanship of this structure is typical of the era and that not only is there some historical significance in it, but there is community interest. He added that the building is constantly being photographed, sketched and painted by passers by and since the notice was posted on the property that something was going to be done to it, he has received phone calls from people asking what was going i to be done to the little house. He stated that they expressed relief that they were going to try to save it and renovate it. Mr. Williams then stated that the structure is sound enough to be moved to another location. Commissioner Seely questioned the.possibility of converting this building into a commercial use. He added that perhaps, from an economic standpoint, this would be more beneficial than an out -of -place residential use that will have to be brought up to code. • Mr. Williams answered that if there was, in existence now, a specific plan for that area that had some of the parking problems worked out, this foreseeably could be. He added that in a few years this building will either be converted -1 1`- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m x m D'1 T f • < A MINUTES o July 1, 1976 ROIL CALL Z INDEX to a commercial use or will be moved off the property. He stated that at the present time, they feel the income from these properties will not take care of the renovation. Mr. Williams felt that the long -range expenses would be minimized if they could maintain these two buildings in a i residential use for an intermittent period. He also felt that the traffic generation in this neighborhood would be minimized by maintaining these properties in a residential use. Dr. Ackerman, 810 Laguna Road, Fullerton appeared before the Planning Commission and advised that he plans to have the additions on this house adjoining the old house so that when the Specific Area Plan is implemented, the house can be moved. He then .stated that he realizes that maintaining these properties in a residential use does not make good economic sense, but he has an emotional attachment to the house. He stated that it does have a significance in the type • of construction that it is, i.e., it is all redwood inside, the beams are still straight, it is over 75 years old and it has no dryrot or termites. He stated that he will accept the plan that is developed by the City whenever it . comes. He then stated that he understands the house is built with old square nails which are worth a dollar a piece. John Shea, 2214 West Ocean Front, appeared before' the Planning Commission and stated that there are 82 lots in that area and only 10 of these .... lots have been developed with structures that' are solely for commercial use. Forty of those lots in.the area have structures which are used for residenti.al purposes only, 22 of the lots in the area are developed as residential use.over commercial use. He stated that there is one undeveloped lot in the area and there are nine lots used for private parking to support commercial establishments and the existing museum. Mr. Shea felt these statistics should be considered in this application. He stated that he is totally against any kind of development until a Specific Area Plan is completed, but'.in view of the fact that the City has been pushing commercial development in its past approvals, he feels a little balance is in order. He stated that he does not think these kinds . of requests for residential development are out of order. -12- COMMISSIONERS Von m a m A • < n A N RMI CA11 �� 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 1, 1976 MINUTES INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed.. Commissioner Agee stated that he believes the applicant has a sincere interest in saving a very unique building and further stated. that the applicant has impressed him that this is an interim use. Commissioner Agee advised that he feels the Commission should favor this application. He added that he favors the low traffic generation this proposal would produce and feels this would be an improvement. Motion X Motion:was made that Planning Commission-make the following findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the.residential uses are long established, and will help upgrade a blighted area of the City. • 2. That the project does not have any significant impacts. adverse environmental 3. That adequate parking is being provided on site. 4. That adequate provisions for traffic circu- lation are being made if the alley systems.are. improved. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1796 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 neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1796, subject to the following conditions: 1. That revised plot plans conforming to conditions 2 through 8 below, shall. be submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval prior to the issuance • of any permits. 2. That the garages shall maintain rear yard setbacks of 10 feet from the existing 10 -foot wide alley. -13- COMMISSIONERS A m y m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Qn ? m < • m A m a ROLL CALL, i July 1 , .1976 MINUTES INDEX 3. That the applicant be responsible for improvements to the adjacent alleys. These. improvements shall be in conjunction with the proposed development unless impractical for engineering reasons, in which .case an agreement and surety will be required. 106 22nd Street 4. That the fence shown in the side yard adjacent. to the 9 -foot wide alley shall maintain a. 5 -foot setback. This 5 -foot setback area shall be paved by the applicant, and maintained free of obstructions. 108 22nd Street 5. That a 3 -foot side yard shall be maintained on the northeast side property line. 6. That the garage be constructed adjacent to • the southwest side property line. 7. That all building code violations noted in the Assistant Director - Building's memo dated June 23, 1976, shall be corrected to his satisfaction. 8. That all buildings shall be made to conform to Fire Zone 2 as per Uniform Building Code, 19.73 Edition. Commissioner Seely then expressed concern with this project's nonconformity with the General . Plan. He stated that taking the applicant's opinion in the most - favorable light and credence, there's always the problem that there is no legal commitment on this applicant to retain the property and it could be sold to an investor in the future when, possibly, the Specific Area Plan will be completed or under consideration. He added that unless a Commissioner or member of the staff could suggest that some formal improvement could be made, with the condition that when the Specific Area Plan comes under consideration that it could be brought back • into conformity with the intended land use in the area, he would have to oppose the motion. -14- COMMISSIONERS TCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 9 N MINUTES • X A o July 1, 1976 RM i cei i z INDEX Planning Commission then discussed the possibility of.imposing a time limit on the Use Permit. Community Development Director Hogan. then clarified Condition No. 3 to mean that the applicant be responsible for improvements to the portions of the alley abutting the properties included in the application. Ayes X X Commissioner Agee's motion was voted on and Noes X X FAILED. Absent X X Commissioner Parker then stated that he believes there is some merit to this application. He further stated that after listening to the presentation and looking at the detailed picture provided by the applicant, he can see .there is some merit in maintaining the building. He stated that he thinks the building could be maintained i just as easily, and perhaps better, in the long- . run in another location; however, the building • is in this location. He added that we haven't even begun to develop a Specific Area Plan in this location and even if we were to do a Specific Area Plan now, it would be years before I. it would be implemented. Commissioner Seely discussed the possibility of preserving these buildings for commercial purposes and stated that he feels the building should be put into an interim commercial use. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of continuing the hearing to another meeting since there are an even number of Commissioners present at the meeting and they are evenly divided in their opinions. Dr. Ackerman agreed to this continuance. Motion X Motion was made to reopen the public nearing, reconsider, and continue it to the meeting of August 5, 1976. Commissioner Seely stated that he does not view a denial of the application as in any way. preventing development of that property. He • added that, to the contrary, he would.hope that it would lead to development of the property and restoration of it, but in line with the General Plan; therefore, he will not support the motion. -15- COMMISSIONERS. O N m A m A (� A N 0 ROIL CALL 2 Motion Ayes Noes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent • CITY OF July 1, 1976, NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INDEX X Xf X X EMotion land to reopen the public hearing, reconsider, continue it to the meeting of August 5, 1976. X .X 'X j Item #8 (Request to consider an amendment to the Big Canyon Planned Community Text relative to setbacks. AMEND - MEENNT NO. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach APPROVED Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hea.ring was closed. X X X X X Motion was made for approval. of Amendment No. 469. (Resolution No. 956 reflects this action.) X X Item 99" Request to consider an amendment to the Jasmine Creek Planned Community Text relative to setbacks. AMEND - MENT NO. 470 Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach APPROVED Public hearing was opened.in connection with this matter and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. X X X X X Motion was made for approval of Amendment No. 470. (Resolution No. 957 reflects this action.) X X ADDITIONAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL 170 R i I Petition of Frank Clendenen, et al, to initiate HEIGHT— study for the purpose of restricting the height limit of dwellings on the east side (Buck Gully side) of Hazel Drive, between Coast Highway and LIMIT RESTRIC- TIONS ON HAZEL DRIVE Ocean Boulevard, so as to preserve the ocean views and property values of the dwellings between Hazel Drive and Poppy Avenue, in Corona del Mar. (Request to set for public hearing -- NOT SET discussion item.) FOR PUBLIC Zone: R -1 HEARING -16- COMMISSIONERS - - T 1 9 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • a A MINUTES x ROLL CALL 1 i July 1 , 1976 INDEX Height Limitation Zone: 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District Assistant City Attorney Coffin reiterated the points made in his July 1, 1976 memo regarding view preservation through zoning. He then made copies of said memo available to the audience. I Community Development Director Hogan advised the Commission that the issue before them is whether or not to set a public hearing on this matter. Mr. Hogan advised that if the Commission does set a public hearing to consider establishing special height limits, staff would inform the City Council of that action. He further advised that if, on the other hand, the Commission determines that this matter should not be set for public hearing, the staff would report to the City Council that the Com- mission had considered this proposal, had determined that a change is not warranted, and had recommended to the City Council that this matter be dropped from consideration. Mr. Hogan advised that another aspect of this matter involves the legal question as to whether or not the Commission could find that it was consistent with the general welfare to establish a special height limitation. He further pointed out that policy questions involving special view and height consideration pertaining to one residential property in relationship to another had been considered by both the Planning Commission and City Council in the past. The discussion on this matter was opened to the public and Frank Clendenen, 250 Poppy, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the residents on Poppy would like to get a height restriction along the east side of Hazel to protect their views. Mr. Douglas Krauter, resident at 234 Poppy, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opinion that the City should place height restrictions on the • properties on the east side of Hazel Drive. He felt that the flavor of Corona del Mar would be preserved by doing so. He did not feel this would be spot zoning as this is a specific area with specific problems. He added that he -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • a m A { MINUTES � A ROIL CALL 2 July 1 , 1976 INDEX does not feel the zoning should be changed to just protect one individual, but feels it should be changed when it applies to an entire area i Robert Jones, 308 Poppy, Corona del Mar appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that although he feels zoning should. be impersonal to the community, he feels Corona del Mar has a flavor that is being destroyed by building.. He then appealed to the Planning Commission to put more consideration into the types of dwellings that are being permitted. He then stated that the City should try to preserve the flavor that Corona del Mar has become famous for. He used Laguna Beach as an. example of maintaining the character of an area through more - selective building. Joe Phillips, owner of homes at 222 Poppy Avenue and 325 Poppy Avenue, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated • that he believes this type of zoning exists on the upper side of Ocean Boulevard. He stated that two -story dwellings are permissible on the upper side of Ocean Boulevard, but on the lower side, they can only go up twelve feet above the ground.level. Chairman Heather explained that this height restriction was accomplished with C. C. A R.'s and not with City zoning. Community Development Director Hogan explained that the height limitations on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard have been established by a combination of orders, most of them by curb - cuts -- none of them by zoning restrictions. He further explained that on Ocean Boulevard.those height limitations were established with the specific purpose of protecting the public views and not, in any case, for the purpose of protecting private views alone. Mr. Phillips then stated that if people on the lower side of Hazel built higher houses, that would mean that the people on the lower side . of Poppy would have to raise their homes to save their view. This would then obstruct the views of the people on the upper side of Poppy. He felt that a lot of problems could be -1 8- COMMISSIONERS. 'o m a m v m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m n M A .M • F MINUTES N July 1, 1976 ROLL CALL Z INDEX prevented if the City would place height limit restrictions on the properties at this time. He stated that no one on the lower side of Hazel, to whom he has spoken, objects to this restriction as the property owners feel they can always go out into the canyon further if they j I need more room. Commissioner Parker advised that since the property owners, who are directly affected, are willing to voluntarily restrict the height they would be able to build to, there would be no need for imposition of governmental control.. He advised that a covenant or restriction could be recorded on the property so that any subsequent owner of the property would take the property subject to that restriction. Mr. Phillips stated that he did not feel this would be a good idea since people do not like to put restrictions on their property alone. • However, they would be willing to observe the zoning which would affect everyone. He felt it would be better to place the height restrictions on the property now, when there isn't the pressure to have higher houses. He then discussed the parking problems on Hazel (which is a one -way street) and stated that it will be much worse if houses are built with three and four bedrooms. He felt that this would worsen congestion and make it hard for emergency equipment to enter the area. Mrs. Malcolm Jones, 308 Poppy, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the house next to hers is now going up another whole story and that her property has depreciated by approximately $50,000 as a result of this. She advised that her home was purchased in 1962 with plans for a master bedroom over the garage; however, she would not consider doing this knowing how her neighbors feel. She stated that she would like to see the City place height restrictions on these properties. She then commented on the parking problem in the area. She stated that she went through the Planning and Coastal Commissions with no avail to try to stop her neighbors from building the extra story. Assistant Director - Planning Hewicker then -19- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Vol 7L\ Di i. f < 12011L rA, z July 1 , 1976 MINUTES INDEX advised that that structure did not come before the Planning Commission because it met all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and all the requirements of the Building Ordinance. He then informed her that when plans meet all these requirements, there is no notification or public hearings involved. Mrs. Jones stated that she feels the Zoning Ordinance is too lenient. She further stated that the property owners in the area bought their homes with a view. Dorothy Phillips, 222 Poppy, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and suggested that the amount of building permitted . on a lot be proportionate with the size of the lot, i.e., if a person owns a 30 -foot lot, they. can build up to a certain limit, if a person owns a 40 -foot lot, then can build up a little more. She stated that if Corona del Mar continues to build up, children will have no • place to play other than at the beach. Mr. Phillips reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he feels this unique area should have its own zone. He felt the entire length of Poppy, from the highway to. the ocean, should have its own zone, and that there is no reason to equate this to the rest of Corona del Mar. He felt this is the only . area that should be effected because it has a peculiar problem. He also felt this would benefit the whole City, since the entire City . would be effected if equipment can't get into the area in case of fire. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public portion of this discussion was closed. Commissioner Seely stated that people have come before the Planning Commission in the past and spoke in opposition to the City restricting their property rights since they. paid. substantial amounts for their property. Commissioner Seely did not feel this situation • warranted the City exercising its powers to preserve the view of individual property owners since there is no concomitant benefit to the public as a whole. . -20- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH p a MINUTES o July 1, 1976 RM i rei t z INDEX Commissioner Heather then stated that she has not heard enough public testimony indicating that this is in the broad interest of the community, and not just protecting the private interest of the people across the street. Motion X Motion was made that staff be directed to Ayes X X X X prepare a report for the City Council carrying Absent X X forth the Commission's opinion that the proposal does not warrant public hearing in that it is inconsistent with the requirements of the law as suggested by .the City Attorney's office, and inconsistent with the policies the City has followed in the past with the purpose of..restricting development of one residential. property for the benefit of another. . Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission X X X X recommend to the City Council that the City's nt X X position, as stated in the May 25, 1976 transmittal regarding TICMAP to the County Planning Commission, be reinforced, adding to it the new findings from the Newport.Mesa School District. . Motion X There being no further business, Planning Ayes X X X X Commission adjourned the meeting. TIME: 9:30 p.m. Absent X X JAME PARKER, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -21-