Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/1993COMMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: September 23. 1993 . ROLL CALL WDEX Present * * * * * * Commissioner Di$ano was excused. (Commissioner Pomeroy Absent * .arrived at 7:45 p.m.) s s s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Y s i Minutes of September 9. 1993 minutes of 9/9/9 Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the September 9, 1993, Ayes Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain * Absent Y i Y Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on 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, September 17, 1993, in front of City Hall. Y Y COMMISSIONERS �0''o clof'�.dr�d's CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 940 scussion) Item No. Request to permit the extension of a previously approved R940 resubdivision that permitted the consolidation of one lot, portions of two other lots and a portion of abandoned Carnation Avenue, Approved into a single parcel of land for three unit residential condominium purposes, on property located in the MFR (2140) District. LOCATION: Lot 10, and portions of Lots 8 and 12, Block 231, Corona del Mar, and a portion of abandoned Carnation Avenue, located at 308 Carnation Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Carnation Avenue, between Bayside Drive and Seaview Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR (2140) APPLICANT: Richard Duggan, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robin Hamers and Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the extension of Ayes * * * Resubdivision No. 940 subject to the finding and conditions in Absent * Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Findine: 1. That the circumstances under which the original application for Resubdivision No. 940 was approved have not changed and that the granting of a two year extension is appropriate so as to allow the applicant additional time to record the required parcel map. I -2- COMMISSIONERS 15 110 1110 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHSeptember 23, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Condition: 1. That in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16.010 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the original. approval of Resubdivision No. 940 is extended two years to the date of October 11, 1995. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 940, as approved by the Planning Commission on September 20, 1990, shall be fulfilled. Resubdivision No. 941 cession) Item ]No.. Request to permit the extension of a previously approved 8941 . resubdivision that permitted the consolidation of portions of two existing lots and a portion of abandoned Carnation Avenue into a Approved single parcel of land for two unit residential condominium purposes, on property located in the MFR (2140) District. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 12 and 14, Block 231, Corona del Mar, and a portion of abandoned Carnation Avenue, located at 312 Carnation Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Carnation Avenue, between Bayside Drive and Seaview Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR (2140) APPLICANT: Richard Duggan, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robin Hamers and Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa -3- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHSentember 23.1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the extension of Ayes * ' Resubdivision No. 941 subject to the finding and conditions in Absent Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Finding: 1. That the circumstances under which the original application for Resubdivision No. 941 was approved have not changed and that the granting of a two year extension is appropriate so as to allow the applicant additional time to record the required parcel map. Conditions: 1. That in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16.010 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the original approval of Resubdivision No. 941 is extended two years to the date of October 11, 1995. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 941, as approved by the Planning Commission on September 20, 1990, shall be fulfilled. Use Permit No 3510 (Public Hearing) stem No. Request to permit the expansion of an existing restaurant with on- UP3510 sale alcoholic beverages, located in 'Retail Commercial Site No. 1" of the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposal Approved involves a request to convert an adjacent commercial space into an additional dining area in conjunction with the existing restaurant use. The proposal also includes a request to waive the additional required off - street parldng and a request to permit the establishment of live entertainment in the expanded restaurant facility. -4- COMMISSIONERS 0\ V"P@W\1tN\0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHSentember 23.1993 ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 53 -15 (Resubdivision No. 395), located at 4253 -B Martingale Way, on the westerly side of Martingale Way, southerly of Corinthian Way, in the Newport. Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Janet Ingham, Newport Beach OWNER: L.C. Small, Irvine The public hearing opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant or anyone else, the public hearing was closed at this time. �tion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3510, yes * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Absent CARRIED, Findings: 1. The proposed restaurant expansion is consistent with the General Plan, the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed restaurant expansion can be adequately served by existing on -site parking and off -site reciprocal parking. 4. That the proposed live entertainment is in keeping with the existing restaurant operation and shall be confined to the interior of the restaurant. -5- N'd� ° \ F t�\ ° MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 23, 1493 ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, parking lot illumination, and a portion of the required parking (26 spaces) will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 6. That public improvements may be required of the developer in accordance with Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3510 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 parking plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That the "net public area" of the restaurant facility shall be limited to a maximum of 1,720 square feet. 3. That a Live Entertainment Permit shall be approved by the City. 4. That the live entertainment shall be limited so 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 main entrance of the restaurant. 5. That all signs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Sign Program adopted for the MacArthur -6- hLII011YYa.9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Rentemher 23. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Square Shopping Center and the Newport Beach Sign Ordinance. 6. That exclusive outdoor dining shall be prohibited in. conjunction with this approval and the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall also be confined to the interior of the building, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 7. That a washout area for refuse containers shall 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. 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. 9. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 10. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, parking lot illumination, and a portion of the required parking spaces (26 spaces) shall be waived. 11. That patron dancing shall not be permitted in conjunction with this restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That all restaurant employees shall be required to park on- site (within MacArthur Square) at all times during the time which the restaurant is operating. -7- I SJIION 11110 .9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sente.mher 23. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 13. That no temporary "sandwich" or "A" frame signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the restaurant facility. 14. That the adjacent exterior walkways shall be kept clean and regularly maintained. Said walkway shall be swept, vacuumed, or washed in such a manner that any debris or wastewater does not enter the storm drain system or the bay. 15. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be shielded or screened from public streets and adjoining properties overlooking the restaurant. 16. That 17 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the restaurant facility including the proposed expansion and within the adjacent parking areas located within MacArthur Square Shopping Center. 17. 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. 18. 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. x x x -8- • � q�O�t�`O�rq,�0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Seotember 23. 1993 :>.4 ea ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3511 (Public Hearin) item N, Request to permit the establishment of a pet store involving the UP3511 sale of animals in conjunction with permitted sales of pet supplies, on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial" area Ate' of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. LOCATION: Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Record of Survey 35 -25, located at 3101 Newport Boulevard, on the southeasterly comer of West Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANTS: Donald G. Foster and August Court, Huntington Beach OWNER: William J. Cagney Trust, Newport Beach Commissioner Edwards stated that a letter from Pam Tanner, 209 - 30th Street, dated September 23, 1993, had been received by the Planning Commission expressing her concerns regarding pet noise. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the purpose of the use permit is to allow the sale of fish, birds, and reptiles. He pointed out that the applicant's lease with the landlord prohibits the sale of dogs and cats. The City is not responsible for enforcing the conditions of a lease. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Donald Foster, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Foster indicated that the facility would not provide animal grooming. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public . hearing was closed at this time. -9- :>.4 ea I db CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES J Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion followed with respect to the Commission's concerns regarding potential animal grooming and the sale of dogs and cats. Motion 0 Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3511 Ayes * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Absent * Commissioner Edwards pointed out that Condition No. 5 states that the Planning Commission may recall the use permit for modification if it is determined that the operation is detrimental to the community. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Iand Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with the ' surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the proposed facility. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3511 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Section 20.63.045 of the Municipal Code, and no temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 23, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the subject business. 3. That the sale and display of all animals and other merchandise shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building and that all animal noise shall be confined to the interior of the building. 4. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to allowing the sale of animals on the premisses. 5. That the Planning Commission may add to 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 amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 6. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -11- CODA MISSIONERS 0 0ll�'i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES .s Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3513 (Public Hearing) Item No Request to permit the conversion of an existing specialty food use UP3513 to a take -out restaurant with incidental seating and on -sale beer and wine on property located in the Newport Place Planned Approve Community. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off -street parking. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 83 -705 (Resubdivision No. 319) located at 4100 Newport Place, on the northeasterly comer of Newport Place and Dove Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Salim Naber, Newport Beach OWNER: Advent Realty, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant or anyone else, the public bearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3513, Ayes * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION. Absent * CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. -12- .s COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 2:i 1 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the proposed facility. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, ' utilities, parking lot illumination, landscaping, and a portion (22 spaces) of the required parking will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3513 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That the development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and that a portion of the required parking spaces (22 spaces) shall be waived. 3. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 4. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the take -out restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 5. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. -13- I COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 2:3.1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations and no temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the subject business. 7. 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. That the employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 9. That trash storage areas used by the business shall be screened from view from adjoining properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collections agencies. 10. That no outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with the take -out restaurant establishment. 11. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 12. That the Planning Commission may add to 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 amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x s x -14- II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INWW I I Je temwr L5 199-1 ROLL CALL t INDEX Site Plan Review No. 65 (Public Hearing) item No., Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on SPR 65 property located in the R -1 SPR District. Approved LOCATION: Portions of Lots 30, 32 and 34, Block A -36, Corona del Mar and a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 1026 on property located at 3014 Breakers Drive, on the southeasterly corner of Iris Avenue (unimproved) and Ocean Boulevard, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Kim Campbell, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Kim Campbell, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", with the exception of Condition No. 3 stating ..that the proposed on -site block wall adjacent to the Beach Access Road have a maximum height of 42 inches on the access road side.... He requested that the condition be modified to permit a maximum height of five feet to provide mitigation of noise between the beach access road and the residents, and it would also provide a physical safety barrier to protect the rear yard. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that 42 inches was required inasmuch as it is the height of a wall that is required for the safety of a pedestrian and it would also provide a view over the wall to the ocean for the pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. Discussion followed regarding the feasibility of allowing a five foot high wall but to require the upper 18 inches of said wall to be of open construction. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public . hearing was closed at this time. -15- I1 � �o����P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. Ayes 65, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W, and to - Absent * modify Condition No. 3, so as to allow the construction of a 5 foot high wall with the upper 18 inches to be of open construction subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. MOTION CARRIED. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 65: Fin in 1. That development of the subject property in the SPR Overlay District will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed residential development. 4. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. -16- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se member 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards for the R -1 SPR District. 6. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 7. That the development has been designed to maximize protection of public views from Ocean Boulevard. 8. That there are no archeological or historical resources on- site. 9. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on -site. 10. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 11. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development. 12. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that the project has been designed so as to limit vehicular access to the site from Breakers Drive. 13. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 14. Mechanical equipment and trash areas will be concealed from view. 15. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large -17- I./ COAUMSSIONERS %0100-1-;�O�O�iO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX for access through or use of property within the proposed development. lb. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 17. The approval of the proposed project 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 compliance with the approved site plan, conceptual grading plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. 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 completion of the public improvements. 3. That the public rigbt -of -way area between the property fine and the Beach Access Road be graded level with the existing sidewalk with a minimum two (2) foot bench provided behind the Beach Access Road right -of -way; that the proposed on -site block wall adjacent to the Beach Access Road shall be limited to a height of five feet (the upper 18 inches to be of open construction) on the access road side with a low landscape buffer between the A.C. sidewalk and the wall as approved by the Public Works Department; and that a concrete curb be constructed along the southerly side of the parcel to confine the landscape 10 planting adjacent to the Beach Access Road. All work shall -18- clo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 4. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 932 ' shall be fulfilled. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. General Plan Amendment 93-2(D) (Public Hearin Item No.' equest to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so cPA 93 -21 is to allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development on (`R1336) roperty located in Block 600 of Newport Center; and the TSS7 cceptance of an environmental document. _ UP3509 ITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Approved AND B. Traffic Study No. 87 (Public Hearin equest to approve a traffic study so as to allow the conversion of pproximately 14,445 square feet of existing general office space -19- COMMISSIONERS d Ohl -'o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 1W I I I I I I September ls, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and restaurant space to athletic club purposes. The proposal also includes the construction of 3,805± square feet of additional floor area, to be used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club. AND C. Use Permit No. 3509 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF -H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the athletic club based on a demonstrated formula. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF -H APPLICANT: Family Fitness Center, Orange OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert Dennis, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", with the following exceptions: Condition No. 4, Use Permit No. 3509, regarding the hours of operation - that the condition be changed from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. weekdays to 5:30 am. to 11:00 p.m. weekdays; and that Condition No. 6 be modified inasmuch as the condition states that the applicant shall provide parking free of charge for the customers; however, the validated free parking would be limited to two hours in accordance with their lease. In response to questions posed by . Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that generally speaking -20- COMMISSIONERS GtcLs�O dr �O t�h''PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September Z3 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX when a fee is required to park in Newport Center, customers have tendency to park their vehicles on the streets or in Fashion Bland and do not use the parking structures. Mr. Dennis stated at the establishment would encourage their patrons not to remain on the premises for more than two hours. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Dennis explained the procedure that is followed to validate the customer's ticket. The patron would be required to pay the difference if the time extends beyond the two hour validation eriod. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Dennis explained that the subject facility would provide employees free parking in the adjacent parking structure. He further stated that ' the proposed area that would be enclosed at the first level would be to the drip line of the structure. n response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Dennis explained that the two proposed signs will conform to the Sign Code, and one sign will be located on the front of the wilding and one sign on the side of the parking structure. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. otion was made to approve General Plan Amendment No. 93- Motion * (D), (Resolution No. 1336), Traffic Study No. 87, and Use Permit No. 3509 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. Amend the use permit as follows: Condition No. 4 shall be modified to state ..the hours of operation shall be limited between he hours of 5.30 am. to 11:00 p.m...; Condition No. 5 shall be odified to state ...employees of the health club shall park on -site the adjacent parking structure; Condition No. 6 shall be modified to state ...The Family Fitness Center shall provide parking free of barge for up to two hours for its patrons... Ayes sent Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -21- COMMISSIONERS 14 L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, maldng the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findin&5: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received,and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study,could have a significant effect on the ' environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. 3. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 735.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures for this project. -22- COMMISSIONERS 21N n, ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September zi ly`l3 BOLL CALL INDEX B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 93-2(P-). Resolution No. 1336. recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93 -2(D). C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 87 Accept the traffic study making the following findings: 1. A traffic analysis in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation measures will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major,' "primary- modified;' or "primary" streets. D. USE PERMIT NO. 3509: Fin in 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land use. 2. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed development. 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 the establishment of the health club will not have any significant environmental impacts. -23- COMMISSIONERS go \1VW1\e0A%X*-\k0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Se tember 211993 ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the granting of Use Permit No. 3509 will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially 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 in the following conditions. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Sign Code. 3. No person shall perform or administer a massage, or advertise to provide massage services at the subject establishment. Should the applicant desire to provide massage services, an amendment to this Use Permit shall be required in addition to other the applicable requirements of Chapter 5.50. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 5:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. on week days and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. during the weekend, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That all employees of the health club shall park on -site in the adjacent parking structure. 5. That Family Fitness Center shall provide parking free of charge for up to two hours for its patrons parking in the parking structure located at 600 Newport Center Drive. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to 24 I COMMISSIONERS dh V1FP0N;\%0P6*-\k0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 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 this community. 8. 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. A. Site Plan Review No. 66 (Public Hearing) Item Ny.l Request to approve a site plan review so as to allow the SPR 66 • construction of 12 detached single family dwellings on property located in the Harbor View Hills Planned .Community. The TTM 1453 proposal also includes a modification to the Harbor View Hills Cont'd Planned Community District Regulations, so as to allow the construction of a sound wall along the exterior perimeter of the to 10/7/93 proposed development, portions of which exceed 8 feet in height, up to a maximum 10 feet 6 inches. AND B. Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 (Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 92 acres of land into 12 numbered lots for single family residential development, 6 lettered lots for private landscape purposes, 1 lettered lot for a public park site, l lettered lot for public landscape purposes and 1 lettered lot for future MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way, in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. LOCATION: A portion of Block 92, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2001 Newport Hills Drive West, on the northwesterly side of Newport Hills . Drive West, between Port Wheeler Place and -25- COMMISSIONERS I/ MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MW I I I I I I I Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Port Stanhope Place, in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Manning Company, Santa Ana Heights OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Adams Streeter Civil Engineers Inc., Irvine Commissioner Gifford stated that in the interest of avoiding any potential appearance of conflict of interest, she would withdraw { from participation as a Commissioner in the proceedings with respect to the agenda item. It is a project which the architecture was done by a firm which her husband is employed. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the City has met with the applicant and The Irvine Company concerning the City's acceptance of a manufactured 2 to 1 slope between the developed lots and MacArthur Boulevard. There is a concern regarding the noise mitigation measures and the responsibility for the mitigation in the event the proposed measures are not adequate. The staff, the developer and The Irvine Company have not been able to come to an agreement regarding the foregoing concerns; therefore, he suggested that at the conclusion of the public hearing that the public hearing be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 7, 1993. Mr. Hewicker stated that letters have been received by the Planning Commission from Linda Schindler, 1800 Port Tiffin Place; Anita Meister -Boyd, Past President of the Newport Hills Community Association; Stephen Bonn, 1801 Port Stanhope Place; and R. D. McCumsey, a previous employee of The Bren Company. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with respect to the noise mitigation, Mr. Hewicker explained that a . Traffic Study was executed to address the issue of mitigation to the -26- I COIIUMSIONExs Aso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ae remoer w iyvi ROLL CALL INDEX existing homes, and that conditions are proposed in the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 regarding the mitigation measures for the new homes. The Public Works Department and the applicant discussed some eventualities of what may happen concerning noise mitigation in the event it was determined that the noise levels that were anticipated were actually louder than what were projected. It has not been determined who would be responsible for additional mitigation if it is necessary after the new homes are constructed and before the widening of MacArthur Boulevard. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that when MacArthur Boulevard is widened, the City wants to be certain that the houses are built with the widening taken into consideration. The noise would be mitigated so there would not be an additional expense to the City at the time the roadway is widened, and it would provide noise mitigation to the twelve new houses. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that the proposed noise mitigation is a combination of slope and walls, and so the walls would not appear as high as walls previously constructed in the City. e public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. im Manning appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf f the applicant. He stated that as a result of meetings with the eighbors and the City during the past two years, the applicant has ttempted to address the major concerns expressed by the eighborbood. The major criteria are traffic safety; landscape eautification; sound attenuation; open space; and architecture. Manning described the site plan on display to explain the roject. The site consists of 9.2 acres whereby 3.3 acres consists of e residential area. The remaining area consists of a widening of acArthur Boulevard which will be a temporary landscaped area til that occurs, and a 2 to 1 slope along MacArthur Boulevard Nill be landscaped heavily. Landscaping along Newport Hills . rive West consists of a 30 foot wide landscaped parkway from -27- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the curb to the side yard fences. The proposed walls are 30 feet from the curb, and the proposed structures are approximately 40 feet from the curb. On the opposite side of Newport Hills Drive West, the existing homes are located approximately 20 feet from the curb. There is an existing eucalyptus grove and slope on the site adjacent to the street that has a nice landscape element that many neighbors appreciate, and the proposal is to replace the grove with a strong landscape element which will equal the amount of landscaping that currently exists. He described the types of trees that would be used for the proposed landscaping. The proposal also includes a one -half acre passive park that will be offered for open space, and will be maintained by the City. The park will provide a view of the Big Canyon Golf Course. A bicycle path from the park will ultimately connect with the proposed bicycle trail on MacArthur Boulevard. In reference to the walls and attenuation, Mr. Manning explained that sound levels have been projected that would be created by the widening of MacArthur Boulevard. The sound attenuation consultant has gathered data from a computer model to project the sound levels that would be created that would impact the existing neighborhood and impact the homes. There is an attempt to optimize the attenuation of the noise to the existing homes by creating a 2 to I slope and a 12 -1/2 foot wide barrier which is a combination of a 5 -1/2 foot high berm with a 7 foot high wall on top of the berm to provide a solid mass and to break the line of sight and ear along MacArthur Boulevard. The wall varies in height from 8 feet high on a 4 foot berm, to 7 feet on a 5 -1/2 foot high berm, to 8 feet on a 4 -1/2 foot high berm. He explained that there would be a 2 foot berm with a 10-1/2 foot high wall at one point inasmuch as on MacArthur Boulevard there is a constraint to maintain a 50 foot wide buffer from the ultimate right -of -way to the property line at the top of the slope. He explained that the proposed landscaping would screen the walls on MacArthur Boulevard and on the north and south ends of the site. The design of the walls are intended to match the existing wall design . which is a 6 foot high stucco wall. -28- COMMISSIONERS �AO �CtOr��d k�\ � �O�tt�h' �y�OS O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES j Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL I INDEX Mr. Manning stated that the proposed architectural design will blend with the existing architecture in the neighborhood, i.e. the original architecture, and the remodelled homes. The style would be considered 'Americana' consisting of a front porch, a wood structure on the front of the homes, white fencing, brick and stone would be used for detail, and the houses would consist of stucco with white trim and column details. The roof material would consist of a simulated concrete shingle to simulate a wood shake, and the roofing is available in three different colors. Mr. Manning explained that minimizing the access from the project onto Newport Hills Drive West was achieved by designing three cul -de- sacs. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding security and debris during construction, Mr. Manning explained that along the site as it faces Newport Hills Drive West, there will be a temporary fence approximately 6 feet high. He explained that every attempt would be made to minimize the aggravation of the grading process. Construction traffic will use a temporary access road that will be graded off of Ford Road adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Glover referred to the Newport Hills Community Association, and Mr. Manning explained that the applicant has offered to annex the site to the Community Association, and that process would take place after the approval of the tentative tract map. All of the homeowners will be contacted for their approval to allow the annexation. By annexing into the Community Association the proposed development would be required to comply with the existing CC&R's. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Webb explained that the widening of MacArthur Boulevard would not commence until at least three to five years. Mr. Steve Bonn, 1801 Port Stanhope Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the project would obstruct approximately 75 percent of his view, and three of his neighbors would lose 100 percent of their views. The view lots were . purchased at a premium, and he pointed out that he has a wrought _29_ COMMISSIONERS AO Gto�,Ad�prS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX iron fence at the rear of his property to enhance the view. Mr. Bonn referred to the document that he prepared for the Planning Commission indicating the lots that would be impacted by the proposed project. He was assured when be purchased the property that no building would take place on the subject property inasmuch as it was owned by the State of California. He explained that if they lose their view that there would be a significant loss in their property values. They were informed during the first two meetings with the applicant two years ago that the development would not occur past Port Stanhope Place; however, it will be significantly constructed past Port Stanhope Place. He explained that the proposed pads, walls, and landscaping would impede his view, and he described the existing view of his property and the neighborhood from photographs. ' Chairman Merrill stated that Mr. Bonn's property is one of the few homes that has a wrought iron fence to provide a view; however, the majority of the lots that side up to Newport Hills Drive West and are adjacent to the loop streets on the park were solid walls except for the wooden inserts. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Bonn explained that the wrought iron fence was constructed to accommodate them when they purchased the property, and the developer increased the price of the lot. Chairman Merrill commented that the developer increased the price for the cost of the wall and not a charge for a view. Chairman Merrill explained that he personally approved the prices of the properties in the original development. The word 'view' in the pricing was not a part of Phase I or Phase 11. The price variances were for floor plans, elevations, lot sizes, lot configurations, locations in relationship to the park, corner lots, and a fee for the wall. What was sold to the Bonns was not sold as a guarantee forever lifetime view. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to R. D. McCumsey's letter dated September 23, 1993, addressed to staff indicating that during his employment as sales manager for The Bren Company, he participated in establishing sales prices on all new products offered gofor sale in Phases I and II. Lot premiums were established on -30- COMMISSIONERS 0o G �r��d dr s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX certain lots to maintain consistency in market absorption. Premiums were charged for lot size, corners, fencing and orientation to the recreation center. No premiums were ever established on the lots for views. In response to a question posed by Mr. Bonn, Chairman Merrill emphasized that the property owners were not charged for views. Mr. Bonn stated that it was Mr. McCumsey's interpretation when he purchased the property that they were not entitled to a wrought iron fence because their lot is not a view lot or the developer would have charged extra money if it were a view lot. Chairman Merrill commented that the Bonn property was not intended to be a view lot because it originally had a solid wall. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the CC &R's restrictions to maintain views by keeping the trees trimmed, Mr. Bonn explained that the Board of Director's position is that legal counsel has advised the Board that nothing can be done to force property owners to prune their trees to maintain views. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding when the State owned the aforementioned property, Mr. Webb explained that the State never owned the property. The Irvine Company worked with the State on reserving right -of -way for the State at such time as the freeway was to be constructed. The State had completed preliminary design plans for a freeway and how much land would be needed. However, The Irvine Company did not dedicate or sell the property to the State to the best of his knowledge but it was reserved for future use. Chairman Merrill explained that all of the disclosures were included in the Real Estate Commissioner's public report, and no freeways were addressed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Webb explained that the noise mitigation the City is required to provide is to reduce exterior levels to 65 CNEL and interior levels • to 45 CNEL. The existing homes are far enough away from -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Se tember 23. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX MacArthur Boulevard that they do not fall within the 65 CNEL line. Commissioner Pomeroy concluded that no berm or wall would be required for the existing residential development because of the distance from MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Marcus Nicholson, 1800 Port Stanhope Place, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the neighbors. He emphasized that the neighbors have a significant concern regarding the proposed project. Maybert Davis, 1801 Port Tiffin Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Davis read her letter dated September 23, 1993, to the Planning Commission. She stated that when they purchased their property in 1971, they were advised that the vacant land was owned by the State of California as a freeway right -of -way and as a buffer zone for the residents and that no ' homes would ever be constructed on the property. The residents were not advised that the State of California abandoned the property as a freeway right -of -way or when the property was zoned as residential property. She explained that her comer lot has an unobstructed view of Fashion Island, and the proposed four structures across from their property will obstruct their existing view. She addressed the architectural guidelines that the homeowners must comply with when they want to remodel their homes; however, the proposed project would be allowed to impact their community. Mrs. Davis expressed a concern that the health and welfare of the community could be affected when the land is graded. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mrs. Davis explained that when the property owners purchased their property, they did not receive anything in writing that no homes would be constructed on the subject property. Mr. John Dellagrotta,1939 Port Bishop Place, appeared before the Planning Commission as President of the Newport Hills Community Association. He stated that the Board has taken a . neutral position on the proposed project. He commented that the -32- • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • years ago, and it was also involved with many other facets of the development. The community consists of one and two story houses so as to lower the visual impact of the community. At the intersections and the comers at both ends of the roads, the structures were constructed with one story elevations so there would not be the impression of a walled community. The two story structures were constructed so that the stacking of the second story is over the garage on the inland side away from the intersections. He displayed photographs of structures at all of the intersections demonstrating that the second story roof comes down to a one story elevation. The Associatiods architectural standards specifically states in the guidelines and the CC &R's that dwellings on lots at the end of each street abutting Newport Hills Drive must either be of one story or have an elevation that steps down to one story adjacent of Newport Hills Drive, and the proposed structures do not meet that criteria. The guidelines were recently adopted by the Association because of problems with two story houses, primarily in Phase I. Mr. Price stated that he is not against the proposed project; however, in order to fit into the fabric of the community, the structures need to conform with the architectural style: the elevations on the side of the structures adjacent to Newport Hills Drive West need to be redesigned, less . massive, and in consort with the existing homes in the area. -33- Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL I INDEX Board met with the applicant and The Irvine Company during the early stages of development, and an early plan was presented in a Town Hall meeting. The applicant and The Irvine Company have essentially complied with the existing architectural guidelines of the Community Association, and if the plans of the proposed structures would be submitted to the Board of Directors and the Architectural Committee, they would be approved. The applicant and The Irvine Company have taken the neighbors' concerns regarding safety into consideration. An annexation agreement has been made with The Irvine Company that would be proposed to the Association ownership if the City allows the project to proceed. Mr. Rae Price, 1806 Port Carlow Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Price explained that his firm was the landscape architect for the existing residential development 25 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy commented that it would appear that the intent of the massing of the building close to the intersections of the streets has been shifted by doubling the distance from the curb to the proposed structures, including landscaping as a buffer. Mr. Price responded that visually on a two story house, there is not much difference in 10 or 15 feet from a building to the curb. There are houses in the development that are as far back from the road as the proposed structures, and the structures still have the elevation or the roof style that lower to a one story elevation. No one story structures are proposed for the project, and it was insisted that there be a blend of one and two story houses when Newport Hills was developed. The mass of the house that is two story without the lowering to a one story elevation is in conflict with the CC &R's. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if there would be an objection if the proposed structures came out to the same distance with a one story element? Mr. Price replied that he would not object to the suggestion as long as the elevation is reduced adjacent to Newport Hills Drive West. Mr. Price stated that he had concerns regarding the window areas between the existing development and the proposed tract, and into the nature park. He also asked how the proposed plan provides for the bicycle trail link to MacArthur Boulevard. He did not object to the plaster walls; however, he would like to see the same wood element if the project is going to be incorporated into the Association inasmuch as the technique considered the elevation change in the wall. The developer must have agreed with the Bonus that they had a view to allow a wrought iron fence. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Rice explained the reasons why the Association recently modified their CC &R's, and why the proposed project would not meet the existing CC&R's. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that during the past 20 years, the public's preference is now 75 percent for two story dwelling units and 25 percent for one story units as opposed to consumer . preference 20 years ago which was almost directly opposite. It -34- COAUMSSIONERS � N�od\ to � � s o t� 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 14W I I I I he tember Z J 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX would be logical when Newport Hills was developed that there be a stronger mix of one and two story units, and that is not the case today. He described the architectural design that developers are constructing today. Mr. Rice responded that the total fabric of the community to determine the type of product should be considered, and the mix of the product is up to the market. The design integrity has nothing to do with the market place. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Dellagrotta reappeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that the guidelines for the Architectural Committee are modified periodically to meet the new standards and new situations in the community. He addressed the first and second story dwelling units that were constructed in the Newport Hills development. He indicated that there is no requirement in the CC &R's or the architectural guidelines that the homes be a mixture of one and two story units. He explained the policy that the Architectural Committee follows to consider a property owner's proposed project. Mrs. Sherri Murphy, 1800 Port Taggart Place, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her concerns that her view would be impacted by the proposed project. When they purchased their home they were informed that no project would be constructed across from their property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mrs. Murphy replied that she attended a meeting regarding the proposed project two years ago. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. At the request of Chairman Merrill, Mr. Manning reappeared before the Planning Commission to respond to previous testimony. Chairman Merrill suggested that the applicant prepare a plan of the proposed streetscape along Newport Hills Drive West for Commission review. The plan should include the proposed second -35- 11 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Se member 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX story elevations of the dwelling units, the wall setbacks, and roof changes. Mr. Manning stated that the site that was originally reviewed by the homeowners consisted of 15 structures facing on to Newport Hills Drive West. One concern that was expressed was to minimize automobile access on to Newport Hills Drive West. The number of structures was subsequently reduced to 12 homes and due to the cul -de -sac plan, the area for the homes had to get larger. He explained that the 30 foot setback from the curb to the wall line is the result of a landscape issue that was an expressed concern; therefore, an enhanced landscape parkway will replace the existing landscaping. The average distance from the curb to the proposed structures is 40 feet and the average distance from the curb to the existing structures on Newport Hills Drive West is 20 feet. He addressed the issue of two story and one story homes. Chairman Merrill suggested that an overlay show where the proposed wall screens the first story from the street and what shows above the wall. He stated that all of the landscaping does not need to be shown. Mr. Manning stated that the remnant piece between the nature park and the proposed project will be dedicated as open space to the City as part of an open space plan, as will a remnant piece that exists to the north of the subject parcel and the future northerly residential section. In reference to the view, Mr. Manning explained that the project would not totally eliminate the neighbors' sky view. Chairman Merrill stated that the Commission cannot protect private views. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the building pad, Mr. Manning replied that he would show the elevations of the proposed lots as they relate to the elevations across Newport Hills Drive West. In no case would the project be two to three feet higher and in some cases the project, would be one to two feet lower then existing. Commissioner Edwards requested that the applicant place site poles on the site, -36- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember L:i 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and Commissioner Ridgeway suggested balloons instead of site poles. Commissioner Edwards concurred with the suggestion. Mr. Webb referred to the proposed widening of MacArthur Boulevard and he stated that it is anticipated that the construction will incorporate a 12 foot wide sidewalk on both sides of MacArthur Boulevard in addition to an 8 foot wide bicycle lane in the street. There is not sufficient room with a 2 to 1 slope coming down to back of sidewalk to have the sidewalk meander within the parkway area adjacent to the park. In this particular area, the sidewalk will probably be located adjacent to the curb. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the Commission does not have the purview to protect private views, only public views. He expressed support of the aforementioned balloons if they would be for the purpose of public views. He indicated that the neighbors will not have the views that they have had; however, from personal experience he said that it is feasible that the neighbors will have views of very well maintained landscaping. He addressed the fact that the property owners were originally informed that the subject property would be a freeway; however, he questioned if the project would depreciate their homes any more than a freeway. The project is a tremendous improvement from the plans that he originally saw, and he addressed the meetings during the past two years between all of the interested parties to come up with the final plan for the project. If there are losers, it may be the property owners immediately adjacent to the development, but the Association as a whole may not be with this type of development. Commissioner Glover stated that the losers will be the new homeowners who will be the closest to MacArthur Boulevard and who will be absorbing the noise. The balloons would send a message that the Commission considers private views; however, the Commission does not and she would not be in favor of the balloons because a height variance is not being considered. Motion Motion was made to continue Site Plan Review No. 66 and • Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 to the Planning Commission -37- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES MW September 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX meeting of October 7, 1993. Chairman Merrill suggested that the applicant come back to the Commission with a streetscape that would address the side elevations adjacent to Newport Hills Drive West, space the houses to what the spacing will actually be, and where the top of the wall will hit the houses when a person is standing in the street. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. In support of temporarily erecting balloons for the benefits of the residents he referred to Site Plan Review No. 66 Finding No. 2 states ..impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area.... Finding No. 7 states That the development has been designed to maximize protection of public views from MacArthur Boulevard... Finding No. 13 states The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the General Plan The maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion to include the temporary installation of balloons on the subject site. Following a discussion between the staff and the Commission it was determined to install the balloons at the corners of Lots No. 2, 4, and 6 from the existing grade to the highest elevations of the houses at the corner of the buildings. Ayes * * * Motion was voted on to continue Site Plan Review No. 66 and Absent * Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 to the Commission meeting of October 7, 1993, with the applicant coming back with a streetscape and photographs of the balloons as requested. MOTION CARRIED. -38- 0\4 PoNl%1�'o�'os'o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES iza T ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion Item: Mansionization Study D -1 Request to consider amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Mansion so as to revise permitted buildable areas on small and large tio: residential lots. No Acti James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the issue of the Taken Commission's review of mansionization, and he referred to the data that is contained in the staff report concerning the single family dwelling located at 1711 Irvine Avenue. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the issue is complicated because there is an overlay of CC&R's on many lots throughout the City, and the CC&R's may reduce the size of buildings and in most cases they would not allow the building to be increased. His concerns would be to balance the bulk of the building with the size of living area that most people want to have because the variances that have come to the Commission are generally on smaller lots. Where there is a small or low Floor Area Ratio the intent of the FAR is to reduce the bulk and the mass of the building. There are methods of making sure that the mass of the building is not at the absolute front of the lot where it creates a feeling of mansionization. In reference to Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, he suggested that on the front 50 percent of a lot, the FAR could not exceed 1.5, and the rear 50 percent of the lot, the FAR could not exceed 2.0. The intent of the regulation would be accomplished but there would be an increase by approximately 400 square feet of the amount of living area that would be available on the inside of the building with the mass of the structure restricted to the alley. The situation exists in many areas of the City where there is a higher FAR but there is the same or smaller size lot. Commissioner Pomeroy said that a second solution would be to eliminate the requirement of all of the enclosed space in a garage being calculated in the FAR. The existing regulation states that . if a garage is enclosed all typically 400 square feet of area is -39- iza T COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se member 23 1993 ROLL CALL I INDEX calculated in the FAR, yet it is feasible to construct a carport for one of the parking spaces and then the requirement would be to provide 200 square feet in the FAR. The solution to allow more interior space in the dwelling unit would not solve the bulk on the street which is what he is mostly concerned with. In reference to China Cove, Commissioner Pomeroy stated that only a 1,550 square feet house could be built if there is a two car enclosed garage. He suggested FAR's on larger size lots could be brought down because he did not see any reason why they could not be brought down and still allow the maximum sized dwelling that a property owner would like to have. Mr. Hewicker responded that if the FAR's were reduced on larger size lots, it could result in many nonconforming homes. With respect to China Cove, he said that as a result of the permitted . FAR's and the lot sizes there is a small buildable area. In reference to Balboa Island, the R -1.5 Zoning regulation was at the request of the property owners, and there have not been any requests to amend the regulation. Commissioner Edwards stated that to address the issue, it may be necessary to consider an adoption of a new General Plan. Commissioner Glover stated that her neighbors in Newport Heights have expressed their concerns regarding mansionization; however, they also have a desire to utilize the maximum floor area of their structure. It would appear that the public wants large houses. Commissioner Gifford expressed her concern that it may not be feasible to modify the regulation by simply changing the FAWs, and she queried what would be the proper vehicle to modify the FAR changes. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the issue appears to be bulk. He concurred with Commissioner Glover's comments that the • property owners have a desire to construct their homes to the -40- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH qqw I I ' I I I I September 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX maximum. Open space, setback, and FAR requirements are current regulations and he questioned what else could be accomplished. Chairman Merrill described the regulations that are required in the Spyglass Hill community. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that by having an arbitrary FAR, the City decides the size of a property owners home, and that was not the intent of the FAR. It should not be the intent of the Commission to state a property owner is required to develop a specific square footage and at the same time the Commission has a desire to not have an unattractive dwelling or bulk on the front portion of the lot. He suggested that the Commission eliminate the 400 square feet from a garage being included as part of the FAR, forcing a property owner to construct one garage and one carport. Mr. Hewicker explained that when the concept of the R -1.5 FAR was first discussed, particularly on Balboa Island, the thought was to have a one story elevation on the front, and a rental unit on the back of the lot above the garage. The reason for the R -1.5 FAR was to cut down on the size of the dwelling that could be built, and to provide an adequate size for the home and a small rental unit. There was a concern regarding height, bulk, setback, and the number of bedrooms that could be built within the space so as to limit the number of people that would be living on Balboa Island. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Hewicker discussed the variance requests to increase the FAR that the Commission has recently considered. Motion * Commissioner Edwards made a motion to take no action regarding mansionization. Commissioner Pomeroy made a substitute motion to eliminate the Sub.Motioi requirement that 400 square feet of floor area be required for an . enclosed garage. Reduce the 400 square feet to 200 square feet -41- COMMSSIONERS "oA0 Clpf'�,i' dLD+'S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX in calculating FAR inasmuch as it would allow the same number of automobiles to be parked, and it would not force a property owner to build one covered garage and one open carport in order to provide additional living space. inside the dwelling. Commissioner Gifford stated that she was not in a position to make an informed decision on the real ramifications of the substitute motion. Ayes Noes Absent * * * * The substitute motion was voted on, MOTION NOT CARRIED. - Ayes * - * * * * Motion was voted on to take no action, MOTION CARRIED. No Absent ADJOURNMENT: 10:27 p.m. Adjourn s :s ANNE K. GIFFORD, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -42-