Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/1989COMMISSIONERS d�Ndb REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * Chairman Pomeroy arrived at 7:55 p.m. * Commissioner Persdn was absent. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney s * x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Sandra Genis, Senior Planner Joanne MacQuarrie, Secretary Minutes of August 10. 1989: minutes of 8 -10 -89 Commissioner Glover referred to page 14, Use Permit 3251 (Amended) and stated that her vote showed incorrectly as a 'No" and should be changed to "Aye." Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the corrected August Ayes * * * * * 10, 1989, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent a s s Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda • James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 18, 1989, in front of City Hall. COMMISSIONERS o � August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request for ontinuances James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff has recommended the continuation of Item No. 2, Traffic Study No. 58 ,and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended), Lee West, applicant, property located at 2922 - 2940 West Coast Highway, to the September 7, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, so as to allow further review of the subject traffic study. He stated that staff has requested that Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3009 (Amended), Ardeshir Bahar, applicant, be continued to the hearing of September 7, 1989, to allow the applicant sufficient time to address the concerns of staff and the other City Departments which may require the redesign of the project. Mr. Hewicker stated that Item No. 6, a request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to establish a Methane Gas Hazard Overlay Zone was removed from calendar. Motion h Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 2 and Item A s k k k No. 4 to September 7, 1989. MOTION CARRIED. t nt In response to Commissioner Debay's inquiry, Mr. Hewicker stated that information regarding the aforementioned Item No. 6 could be obtained from either the City Attorney's office or from Patricia Temple, Principal Planner. Use Permit No. 3357 (Continued Public Hearing) item No. i Request to permit the establishment of a retail sales operation UP3357 involving the sale and installation of electronic sound equipment and cellular phones for automobiles and boats on property Approved located in the M -1 -A District. . The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit the installation of a related identification sign which will encroach 10 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Campus Drive. LOCATION: Lot 30, Tract . No. 3201, located at 4360 Campus Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive between Dove Street and MacArthur Boulevard, across from the John • Wayne Airport. -2- COMMISSIONERS • August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Jorge R. Oubina, Newport Beach OWNERS: Claudia and Pierre Sawaya and Partners, Irvine The continued public hearing was opened in connection with this item. The applicant was not present; Claudia Sawaya, part owner and manager of the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Sawaya stated that bids were out to have the parking area restriped in accordance with City standards. She also stated that the relocation of an identification sign to a site further back then what appeared on the submitted plans would eliminate any encroachment into the required 15 foot front yard setback and the requirement of a modification to the Zoning Code. Vice Chairman Merrill expressed his concerns regarding the applicant's past operating performance at another City location. • In response to Commissioner Merrill's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that any problems associated with the applicant's former operation should not affect the action of the Planning Commission with regards to the current Use Permit application. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Debay as to whether or not the applicant had advised Ms. Sawaya of the Findings and Conditions of Approval of the Use Permit, she stated that she had read them and was in agreement. Discussion followed between the Planning Commissioners with regards to the applicant not being present for the Public Hearing. Assistant City Attorney Flory confirmed that though absent, the applicant was legally bound by the regulations of the use permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano stated that in light of the concerns expressed with the applicant's past performance, and in order to have the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the applicant Motion himself, he moved to continue the public hearing. Substitute Motion * A substitute motion was made and voted on to approve Use * * Permit 3357, deleting the modification to the Zoning Code in No k conjunction with the proposed identification sign, and based upon Absent -3- COMMISSIONERS August 24, 1989 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX. the fact that the applicant was aware that he was bound by the Findings and Conditions of Approval, and if it were deemed necessary, the Planning Commission had the authority to rehear the Use Permit. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is support service in nature and not an intensification of use of the existing structure, and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. 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. 3. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed development. 4. That the establishment of the subject business will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3357 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 and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the parking lot layout shall be prepared and the striping shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of building permits or the establishment of the subject • business. -4- COMMISSIONERS \\d�r. d�� August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That all installation, testing and demonstration of boating and automotive sound, communications and alarm systems shall be conducted within the building and no outdoor display shall be permitted. 4. That the intersection of Campus Drive and the driveway be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour in conformance with City Sight Distance Standard 110-L Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 5. That the replacement of the identification sign shall conform to the requirements to the City's Sight Distance. Standard 110 -L for the subject property and any adjacent property and be placed behind the existing 5 foot wide water easement located adjacent and behind the existing public sidewalk to the satisfaction of the Public Works • Department. 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Campus Drive and adjoining properties. 7. That no outdoor sound system shall be utilized on -site. 8. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 9. That all improvements be constructed as may be required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this 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. 11. This use permit shall . expire unless exercised within 24 . months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -5- COMMISSIONERS August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 12. That the proposed identification sign shall not be permitted in the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Campus Drive. A. Traffic Study No. 58 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the conversion Ts58 of an existing employee's cafeteria in the Newport Imports automobile dealership, to a restaurant facility. UP3229(A) AND Cont. to 9 -7 -89 B. Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended),(Public Hearin¢) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height • Limitation District, on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The area of the proposed amendment includes a request to convert an existing employee's cafeteria into a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine which will operate in conjunction with the auto dealership. The proposal also includes a request to permit a portion of the required restaurant parking on an adjoining parcels which are in the same ownership as the subject property. LOCATION: Restaurant Site: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 87 -106 (Resubdivision No. 840), located at 3000 West Coast Highway; Off -Site Parking Site: a portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2922 - 2940 West Coast Highway; both sites being on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Lee West, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • -6- COMMISSIONERS • August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff recommends that this item be continued to the September 7, 1989 Planning Commission meeting so as to allow further review of the subject traffic study. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Traffic Study No. 58 Ayes * * * * * and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) to the September 7, 1989 Absent * * Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3358 (Public Hearing) item. No.3 Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing duplex UP3358 which is nonconforming with regards to allowable density, and required off - street parking spaces, on property located in the R- Approved 3 District. The proposed construction includes the enclosure of two existing stairways and addition of a new master bedroom and master bath. • LOCATION: Lot 55, Block C, Newport . Beach Tract, located at 308 Alvarado Place, on the southeasterly side of Alvarado Place, between Edgewater Avenue and East Bay Avenue, on Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Cameron B. Fryer, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Cameron B. Fryer, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the alterations and additions planned for the subject property were being done in an attempt to make it into a home for the applicant rather than a rental property. In response to Commissioner Edwards' inquiry, the applicant stated that there would continue to be two units on the subject property, however, instead of two rental units, it was his intention • to live in one of the units. Mr. Fryer stated that he was aware of the condition requiring him to record a covenant guaranteeing -7- COMMISSIONERS 0 �0 • August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX that the future use of the property would be limited to two dwelling units. Planning Director Hewicker commented on the floor plans which, with some minor changes, could in fact create a third dwelling unit. He emphasized that the sitting room portion of the addition was to be used solely in conjunction with the master bedroom. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. The public hearing was reopened to allow the applicant to state that he concurred with the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "A." The public hearing was closed. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3358 A s * * * * * subject to the Findings and Conditions in Exhibit "A," with an nt * * addition to Condition No. 3 to read, " ... limited to no more than two dwelling units." MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Plan; but is consistent with the underlying Zoning District, and the Municipal Code allows the application to be considered under Section 20.83.020 Intensification and Enlargement of Nonconforming Uses and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed application is not an intensification of the existing, nonconforming residential structure, and as such,approval of Use Permit No. 3358 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 -8- COMMISSIONERS August 24, 1989 • �� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed construction shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the two car garage shall be accessible to the parldng of vehicles at all times. 3. That the applicant shall record a covenant, the form and content which shall be approved by the City Attorney, guaranteeing the future use of the property shall be limited to no more than two dwelling units. • 4. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance building for the of permits proposed addition. 5. That should the Zoning District be changed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction this use permit approval shall become null and void. 6. This use permit shall expire unless 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. 3009 ( ended )(Public Hearing) item No.4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit that UP3009(A) permitted the service of beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant in the C -O-Z. District. The proposed Cont. to amendment involves a request to expand the "net public area" of 9 -7 -H9 the restaurant by enclosing an existing covered patio entry. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the • required off - street parldng spaces. -9- COMMISSIONERS • August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 6939 -90, 91 (Resubdivision No. 179) located at 2931 East Coast Highway, on the southwesterly side of East Coast Highway between Iris Avenue and. Heliotrope Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -O -Z APPLICANT: Ardeshir Bahar, Architect, Laguna Hills OWNER: J. Ray Property Management, Irvine James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff recommends that this item be continued to the September 7, 1989 Planning Commission meeting so as to allow the applicant sufficient time to address the concerns of staff and the other City Departments which may require the redesign of the project. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3009 * * * * (Amended) to the September 7, 1989 Planning Commission t WWt* * * meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Plannina Commission Review No. 10 (Discussion) item No.5 Request to review the off - street parking proposed in conjunction : c .. Review with the establishment of a yacht club on property located within go. 10 the "Recreational Marine Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. kpproved LOCATION: A portion of Lot 170, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3333 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Haseko, Inc., _ c/o Ficker and Ruffing Architects, Newport Beach OWNER: County of Orange • -10- COMMISSIONERS August 24, 1989 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Pomeroy explained that Item No. 5 was a Planning Commission Review discussion item rather than a public hearing. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the yacht club is a permitted use in the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan Area, and in itself, does not require a use permit. However, the Municipal Code does not specify a parking requirement for a yacht club. Staff had evaluated the operations of other yacht clubs within the City in order to arrive at parking formulas based upon the activities that might be expected to occur at the subject site. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that there were difficult vehicular ingress and egress problems associated with the location of the property, and that the shape and topography of the site limited the ability to expand and incorporate any additional area for parking. He stated that the applicant wishes to proceed with the yacht club and is aware that during the time it takes to fully occupy the remaining commercial space and to find a suitable restaurant tenant, the operation of the yacht club will be severely limited: Director Hewicker stated that though staff did have some concern once the building is fully occupied and operational, it • did not object to the yacht club beginning its functions. Staff would want the opportunity to review the operation after some activities have been established and before a restaurant, the major tenant, was found in order to arrive at a specific parking requirement. In discussion with Commissioner Glover, Director Hewicker stated that the seating capacity of the restaurant could not exceed 192, the capacity permitted under the old use permit, without amending the use permit. At this time, Mr. Bill Ficker, architect for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In reviewing the existing parking requirement standards, Mr. Ficker stated that the project had a total of 187 parking spaces, resulting in 11 more nighttime total spaces than indicated on the Planning Commission staff report. Referring to previous meetings held with Planning staff and to Planning Director Hewicker's aforementioned statement, Mr. Ficker stated that the applicant agrees to a review of parking requirements once a restaurant use is established. He indicated that the operators of the yacht club are also joint ventures in the building, and realize, being both lessors and lessees, that once the building is fully occupied, it is • the daytime use that would have to be curtailed, and more specifically, the hours between 10 am. and 2:00 p.m.; and as the -11- COMMISSIONERS � NIP aye OI � • August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX commercial office space parking requirements are very specific, it would be either the yacht club or restaurant use that would have to be curtailed. Until that time, Mr. Ficker stated there would be an abundance of parking. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Ficker indicated that the formation of the yacht club was in its primary stages. He estimated that the club membership would spread from San Diego to perhaps Oxnard, and total approximately 1,000 to 1,500 persons. He indicated that one of the concepts is that a proposed reasonable club membership and monthly fee, will attract many boaters as a convenient 'second club,' with about one -half of the slips intended for the 'visiting transient members.' However, the rental of the slips will be on a first come, first served basis. The club operation will not include kitchen facilities. James Hewicker, Planning Director, suggested that the Planning Commission might wish to add a condition that would allow the • Commission to add or modify the conditions of approval or recommend to the City Council revocation of Planning Commission Review No. 10 on a determination that the parking becomes injurious or detrimental to the general welfare of the community. A discussion followed between Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Ficker regarding the wording of an additional condition as suggested by the Planning Director. Motion * Motion was made to approve Planning Commission Review No. 10, subject to the Findings and Conditions in Exhibit "A," and with the addition of Condition No. 6, to read, 'The Planning Commission may add or modify the conditions of approval of this Planning Commission Review upon a determination that the parking becomes injurious or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community." Commissioner Edwards indicated his reservations in establishing a yacht club operation without specific parking requirements, and that in light of deleting the revocation language from Condition No. 6, he would not be supporting the motion. Ayes Noes * * Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. *nt -12- COMMISSIONERS August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed yacht club operation is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off- street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided for the interim yacht club operation inasmuch as the proposed restaurant and offices will not be in operation during the interim period. 3. That the establishment of the proposed yacht club facility on the subject property represents a decrease in development intensity inasmuch as said use has replaced a previous night club operation. CONDITIONS: • 1. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Variance No. 1148 shall be fulfilled. 2. That the establishment of the proposed yacht club shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 3. That this approval shall be subject to further review by the Planning Commission prior to reopening the restaurant facility on the property so as to determine the adequacy of available on -site parking. Should the Planning Commission determine that the on -site parking is inadequate to meet the parking demand for the various uses on the site, the operation of the yacht club shall be correspondingly reduced. 4. That all parking shall be provided on site and no valet parking shall be permitted in an off -site location. 5. All employees shall be required to park on site unless off - site parking is approved by the Planning Commission. 6. The Planning Commission may add or modify the • conditions of approval of this Planning Commission Review upon a determination that the parking becomes -13- COMMISSIONERS August 24, 1989 • ON�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX of 1 unit per 1200 sq.ft. rather than 1 unit per 800 sq.ft. currently permitted in the R -4 district. Referring to a supplemental data packet which had been distributed to the Commissioners and to members of the audience prior to the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Lenard reviewed comparison data between the R -2, R -3, R -4, and the proposed MFR districts, the minimum lot sizes required for possible parking configurations, and examples of parking configurations depending on lot size and property access. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mrs. Carol Martin, 1824 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her immediate concerns with the proposed draft ordinance. She stated that if the overall goal is a product that is architecturally pleasant, that the standards which would preclude the construction of a triplex on a 30 foot wide lot would be too restrictive and limit any chances of creativity. Mrs. Martin stated that the ordinance should include some options for owner - occupied units. Referring to Section 20.11.020 (b) of the Residential Development Standards as it applies to the Peninsula, Mrs. Martin suggested striking the last sentence in Section 20.175.030 of the proposed ordinance, which states, "Where the provisions of this Section are more restrictive than those. of Section 20.11.020 (b), the provisions of this Section shall apply." Another concern expressed by Mrs. Martin was the total reduction in buildable which would result from the proposed reduction in building height combined with the limit of two times buildable, and the inclusion in the building ratio of the required covered parking. Advance Planning Manager Lenard explained to the Commission that part of the General Plan revision included density changes for the multi- family districts, reflecting concerns expressed during hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Properies in the R -4 district were reduced to 1 unit per 1200 sq.ft.; now the implementing provisions of the draft zoning ordinance go a step further and encompass other issues of concern discussed in past hearings, such as building height, bulk, and parking. Mrs. Martin, in responding to Commissioner Edward's query as to specifically what she was suggesting when she made earlier "owner • mention of an occupied" provision, stated that although she had nothing specific in mind, a provision might be in the -15- COMMISSIONERS o. d� August 24, 1989 po ��� • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX. injurious or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. Amendment No. 686 (Public Hearin) Item No.6 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal A686 Code so as to establish a Methane Gas Hazard Overlay Zone and apply said zone to specific properties in the City. Removed .from INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Calendar James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that Item No. 6 was removed from calendar. • Amendment No. 687 (,Public Hearin¢) Item No.7 Request to amend Title 20, of the Newport Beach Municipal A687 Code so as to establish the Multi - Family Residential (MFR) District. Cont. to 9 -7 -89 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, explained to the Planning Commission that as a result of the General Plan Review and the revisions approved in October, 1988, there will be a series of zoning changes required to implement the revised General Plan. Planning staff anticipates bringing the first group of these zoning changes before the Planning Commission in October, 1989. One of the proposed changes is the establishement of a single, multi - family zoning district which will affect properties currently designated "Multi- Family Residential" under the Land Use Element of the General Plan and designated as "R -3" or '114" on current Districting Maps. Mr. Lenard stated that at the time of the General Plan Review public hearings, the Planning Commission indicated a desire for somewhat more conservative multi - family zoning standards with respect to . building bulk, height, floor area ratios, and parking. With this in mind, the proposed MFR draft ordinance incorporates many R -2 standards, and establishes the current R -3 density standard -14- COMMISSIONERS • August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX form of architectural design or landscaping. She suggested that by permitting an increased height limit on 50% of a building could be an incentive and allow for more creativity in design. Mrs. Martin continued that in her opinion, after attending many public hearings, a major complaint often heard regarding the outward appearance of buildings composed primarily of rentals, was the resulting building bulk and general unattractiveness. In the discussion that followed, Planning Director Hewicker concluded that there could not be one set of standards for owner - occupied units and another set for non -owner occupied units; one set of standards must be such as to encourage the owner - occupied units. Advance Planning Manager Lenard explained to the Commission that the intent in patterning the height and building bulk restrictions of the MFR zone to those of the R -2 zone was to maintain the dwelling size and building bulk proportional to the lot size. Commissioner Debay voiced her objection to the inclusion of covered and enclosed parking in the formula of buildable square footage, as she felt this inclusion would add to the number of unsightly, cluttered carports found in the West Newport and Peninsula areas. The discussion which followed between the Commissioners and staff, included suggestions for possible changes in the FAR formula and covered parking requirements for MFR. Mr. Lenard stated that if it was the desire of the Commission to continue the item, staff would prepare alternative proposals for presentation at the next public hearing. Commissioner Glover stated that she did not feel the inclusion of covered parking to be an excessive requirement or add significantly to the overall building bulk, and that the combination of covered and uncovered parking allows for view corridors and a feeling of less bulk. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Debay, Mr. Lenard stated that there are approximately 80 or 90 lots on the Peninsula and in the West Newport area that will remain MFR. Planning Director Hewicker added . that the intent of the MFR is to allow those persons owning more than one lot to combine them and construct something other than one dwelling unit or a duplex as would be permitted in a R -1 or R -2 district • respectfully. -16- COMMISSIONERS o ° �d . o August 24, 1989 a IP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In discussing height limitations and the suggestion of permitting a higher limit of 28/32 on the rear half and retaining the proposed 24/28 on the front half, Chairman Pomeroy asked staff to develop some comparisons for the Commission to review. Mrs. Martin appeared again before the Planning Commission and emphasized what she felt was the importance of allowing some flexibility in the roof height. In the ensuing discussion between the Commissioners and staff; it was suggested that staff provide the Commissioners with photographs of some existing newer R -3 and R4 projects together with some comparative statistics of the building heights and floor area ratios with and without covered parking. .Motion * Motion was made to continue Item No. 7 to September 7, 1989. Commissioner Glover commented that she favored the figures as presented in the proposed draft ordinance. Commissioner Di Sano stated that in his opinion the limitations being discussed as 'restrictive' reflect the intent of the General Plan Review. Ayes * * * * * * Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. Absent e s : Additional Business: hdditional Business Planning Director Hewicker requested the Planning Commission to advise staff in responding to a letter from the Harbor Island Community Association regarding No. 16 Harbor Island Drive. Inasmuch as the letter was received after the agenda was posted for the August 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, City Attorney Burnham informed the Commission that an affirmative Motion * vote must be taken to discuss this item at this time. Motion was Ayes * * * * * * made and voted on to take action on this matter. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff regarding the aforementioned letter regarding No. 16 Harbor Island Drive, and Mr. Hewicker's memorandum to the Planning Motion * Commission. Motion was made and voted on approving the Ayes * * * * * * recommendation as set forth in the Planning Director's nt * memorandum of August 23, 1989, to the Planning Commission, and directing staff to notify the Harbor Island Community -17- COMMISSIONERS w • August 24, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Association that the revision to the single family dwelling located at 16 Harbor Island Drive is a private matter between the Association and the property owner. MOTION CARRIED. Planning Director Hewicker discussed with the Commission the League of Cities Conference, to be held in San Francisco on October 22, 1989. ADJOURNMENT: 9 :20 p.m. kdiournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -18-