Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1995COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4 All 4 F REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7Octo DATE: ber 5, 1995 INDEX LLLL All Commissioners present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Kenneth Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney * ** Patricia Temple, Planning Manager Rich Edmonton, Traffic Engineer Ginger Vann, Executive Secretary * ** Minutes of September 21, 1995 Minutes of 9/21/95 Motion was made and voted on to approve with correction, the September 21, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION Ayes CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Cortnnents No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. * ** Postine of the Agenda: Posting of Agenda: Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 29, 1995, in front of City Hall. COMMISSIONERS Mot All "9i O MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 LL LL to COMMISSIONERS •�o�F 90�,��i� .cw� soy c<�Fq'9 p�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX Ms. Temple noted, for the record, that late that afternoon a letter, via facsimile, from the Yacht Club immediately next door, was received. The Yacht Club managers expressed concerns regarding the arrangement of the slips in front of the three lots. Since this issue is not a matter subject to the Planning Commission, it will be forwarded to the City Council when Council considers the Harbor Permit. Commissioner Sefich asked Staff to clarify Condition No. 8. Mr. Edmonston reported that at this present time, there are no specific changes planned. In general, the number of driveways is limited but, in this case, nothing has been decided. This is a standard condition that allows Staff to work with the Applicant. Public Hearing was Opened. Mr. Richard Dick, Manager LLC, 1711 Westcliff Drive, Newport Beach, • CA, said he agreed with the findings and conditions for approval as listed in "Exhibit A'. j Mr. Val Skoro, 1601 Bayadere Terrace, Irvine Terrace, Newport Beach, CA As Vice President of the Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association, expressed the concerns of the Association regarding the height of the development relative to the foliage and trees. Right now, on the properly, there is a cluster of eucalyptus trees standing a height of 40-50 feet. This stand of trees blocks the view and the Association does not want additional large trees planted that would firther impair the view. The Association would like the Commission, if they approve this Resubdivision, to limit the height of trees and foliage to the height of the structures to be built. The Association would like to see the Applicant tend to the stand of Eucalyptus trees on the property as a matter of good faith. Commissioner Adams asked Staff to address the issue of vegetation. Ms. Temple reported that the property is located in the MFR Zoning District which tames a 28 foot height limit that would allow for an average roof height of 28 feet and a maximum roof height of 33 feet. In terms of landscaping and vegetation, the City does not have specific regulations to limit vegetation height contained within the Codes today. There are areas • -3 COMMISSIONERS �\s $ 10� • °mss° ��`� °�� 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 LL ALL INDEX of Newport Beach, however, which have restrictive covenants limiting landscape heights. If it is the desire of the Commission, a Condition of Approval to that effect may be added to the Parcel Map. Staff's concern would be that the City is not typically set up to monitor conditions like that so this condition would be monitored on a complaint basis only. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if this was a Residential Zone, would the height limit be the same? Ms. Temple stated that this is a multi- family residential district but the MFR District does have a higher height limit than the R -1 and R-2 Districts. The Applicant is requesting a Parcel Map, they have not requested a change to the underlying Zoning. Single family homes can be built in multi - family districts. Commissioner Pomeroy stated this being the case, of building single family homes in a multi- family district, it would be logical that the same 24 feet height limit, 29 feet mwCura m as it applies to virtually every other residence along Bayside Drive where it is an R -1 Zone should be applied. People above could be impacted in their view. Commissioner Adams asked if the 28 to 33 feet limit would be a differential impact over 30 feet. Staff answered that it probably would but was unable to specify how. Commissioner Adams then asked the Applicant to come forward and address the issue of the vegetation. Mr. Dick stated that the Eucalyptus trees are tall, approximately 25 to 30 feet below the edge of the Bluff that is being talked about. lEs intention is not to build the houses, the lots would be sold to individuals to build their own homes on. Whatever conditions on landscaping, can be put on at that time. His concern was rather if he could remove the trees from the standpoint of the environment. He does not know how he would regulate a future user of the lot as to what kind of tree is put in, that would be the Commission's task. Mr. Dick stated that he would plan to remove the trees. Public Hearing was Closed. ' -4- COMMISSIONERS 4 Moti Ff: 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy stated that this is a sensitive issue relating to trees. He agrees with the height of the residential dwellings, no bonus should be given because they happen to be in the multi -family zone because the views are impacted. Therefore, with Staff help, he would like to add a Condition that would set the height limit on these lots to 24 feet, and that the foliage should not go above the ridge height of the building. Commissioner Adams stated that he has seen where severe restrictions like that has stripped beautiful streets of significant landscape. He doubted if other existing landscape would adhere to the ridge height. Commissioner Adams stated that he didn't believe this restriction would mitigate the problem. The problem as expressed is the very tall eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the purpose of the height limit is to assist in view preservation, what is the difference if it is green or red tiles? Commissioner Selich stated that he agrees with Commissioner Adams, that regulations would be overly restrictive. Commissioner Thomson asked if it is appropriate to make a motion. Commissioner Adams stated that they are waiting to hear from Staff on this issue. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that currently it is MFR, the height limit is part of the zoning limit on the property. Therefore, we could not restrict the height limit any lower just because they are resubing. It is part of the Parcel Map and could be added later. on * Motion was made to approve the application as requested with MFR Zoning CRDP No. 22 and Resubdivision No. 1017 in accordance with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A ". Ayes * * * * MOTION CARRIED, 5 Ayes, 1 No, 1 Abstain No stain * A. Coastal Residential Development Permit: Finding: -5- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX That the proposed development meets the requirements. of Article 10.7 of the California Government Code and Section 19.10.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Resubdivision No. 1017: Findings: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed Resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. That reasonable public access is available within a reasonable distance • from the subject property and is not subject to the requirement of the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66478.11. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. The parcel map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 2. That the findings related to public access shall be set forth on the face of the final map. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX 3. That prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 4. That the existing structure be demolished prior to recordation of the parcel map unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance • and the Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 8. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. That vehicular access be designed so that vehicles do not have to back out onto Bayside Drive unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That the intersection of the private drives and Bayside Drive be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping • -7 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 10. That the unused drive approach be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk, and that any damaged or displaced sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the Bayside Drive frontage. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 11. That a condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay side of the property be made by a civil or structural engineer, and that the bulkhead be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). i12. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage of materials within the Bayside Drive right -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. 13. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 14. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 15. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained for the demolition and prior to the recordation of the parcel map. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL ALL INDEX 16. That this Resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. • *a SUBJECT: Bars (findin¢s) Item 3 • Amendment No. 831 (Public Hearing) A 831 Approved Amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to require that specific findings be made by the Planning Commission and the City Council on appeal related to the approval of a Use Permit for the service of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with bars (bars and taverns). Staff had no new information to add, but was available for Commission queries. Public Hearing was Opened. Public Hearing was Closed. Motion Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1411, recommending adoption All Ayes of Amendment No. 831. MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes. Commissioner Kranzley complimented the Staff for this item which will benefit the entire City. SUBJECT: Auto Uses Item 4 • Amendment No. 833 (Public Hearing) A 833 Amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community District and App roved Table 20.33 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code which will prohibit auto storage, automobile repair and automobile detailing in the Newport COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX Place Planned Community and within the APF and RMC Districts, unless ancillary to an automobile sales facility or supportive of the principal uses within the District. Staff had no new information to add, but was available for Commission queries. Public Hearing was Opened. Public Hearing was Closed. Motion Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 1412 recommending approval All Ayes to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes. *r• SUBJECT: Commercial Policy Item 5 General Plan Amendment 95 -1 (Q GPA' 95 -1: (C) • Amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to establish a policy to encourage revitalization of Community Commercial Districts within the City. Continued . to 10/19/95 Mr. Delino stated that this was a discussion item for this evening and will be brought back for a Public Hearing at a later date. The Planning Commission has seen this before, the Economic Development Committee and the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee both have reviewed it. Their comments are presented in alternate typefaces. Commissioner Gifford questioned Staff on the area of Revitalization pertaining to, ".....that the City's community commercial districts must receive the same support and advantages provided in privately managed malls and government redevelopment areas .... ". Why is this statement true? There is no obligation of the City to finance the level of support that a private enterprise would in order to finance the support of a government redevelopment area that carries certain obligations of the people within the district to adopt certain conditions or themes. Redevelopment usually carries with it some higher levels of governmental financial assistance to the municipality. Therefore, she takes issue with the idea that the City should • -10- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX provide something that is consistent with a private enterprise or with a government project which carries certain obligations to the recipient when none of those obligations are being considered here. When this was looked at previously, it was recommended that this be reviewed and have the benefit of the input of the EDC as well as the various Business Improvement Districts and the Homeowners Associations. The BID's and Homeowners Associations should be given the opportunity to comment before this is taken to Public Hearing. The Public Hearing should be scheduled to allow circulation to those groups for comments and assimilation of their comments into another report. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the Policy is in the right direction and affirms what appears to be an obligation under the "Revitalization ". If it could be looked at in terms of City's potential financial obligation, it is a concern. He further recommended that the Community Commercial • Districts Policy be stated in a positive manner and read ...... "should consider the impact.... ", replacing ... "not be at the expense of residential areas in terms.. ". On page 4 under Implementation Item 7, "commercial" should be added and should read, "The City recognizes that the success of community commercial districts may require a condensing of commercial space into reduced central cores." On Item 5, Page 5 under Planning and Building, add the words, .... "development standards "... His last comment was on Item 9 on Page 5 as being vague and ambiguous needing clarification. Commissioner Adams disagreed with Commissioner Ridgeway's comments changing the language in the first paragraph on Page 3. The present wording may be perceived as negative but it needs to remain as is to have any kind of meaningful expression of protection of neighborhoods. Secondly, he agrees with Commissioner Gifford that the Homeowner Associations should review this before the Public Hearing. Staff reported that there is no intent to imply a City obligation but this was written to recognize that somehow these Business Districts should receive these types of advantages. Whether they give it to themselves, finance themselves, or receive City assistance, there is no City obligation. Staff will • -11 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX reword the tent. Appropriate changes will be made and copies will be sent to Associations. There being no objections, this item was tabled to later date. ra* SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-3 Item 6 SUMMARY: Initiation of various requests to amend the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. 2201, 2207 2215, 2301 & 2345 E. 16th GPA 95 -3, A Street: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the Denied land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi - Family Residential. B. 507, 509, 511 & 513 West Balboa GPA 95 -3, B Boulevard: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change Denied the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi - Family Residential. C. Newport Beach Country Club /Corporate GPA 95 -3, C Plaza West: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the .Approved Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to allow residential, hotel, spa and office development in conjunction with a master Plan for the Newport Beach Country Club, Golf and Tennis Club. -12- HIM COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL L INDEX D. 400 Angelita Drive, Irvine Terrace: GPA 95 -3, D Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow for the subdivision Approved of an existing lot in to two lots for single family development. E. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue: Request to GPA 95 -3, E amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use Approved designation for these properties from Two Family Residential to Mulii Family Residential, to allow for the development of eight units on the properties. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Staff if this should be discussed item by item? • Ms. Temple answered that given the interest in the various components of this item, it would be best served to consider them one by one. Commissioner Gifford stated that by considering them one by one testimony could be taken on all of them then voted separately. It was agreed by all. Public Hearing was Opened on Item A. 2201, 2207, 2215, 2301 & 2345 E. 16th Street Staff had no additional comments but noted that an additional letter was received from William Wheeler and Lori Wheeler, property owners at 2315 16th St., in opposition to this proposed Amendment. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if there is an applicant and if that applicant had been provided a copy of tonight's letter. Mr. Budnik was not in attendance but he will be given a copy of the letter. Mr. Jan Vandersloot, a resident of 14 years at 2221 E. 16th St., spoke in opposition of this Amendment. He stated it is not appropriate to change this R -1 family residential community into something more dense. He • -13 COMMISSIONERS •y�` 9�0�����a� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX stated that apparently Mr. Budmk, the applicant, moved in 7 months ago and read about the Castaways Project in the August Coastal Magazine and became concerned over `losing money on his house'. Mr. Vandersloot states that this is not a good reason to change the General Plan from R -1 to a multi - family residential. All of the houses on this block are older houses with very little turn over. It is a typical neighborhood community composed of both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa residents. The traffic on the street has been reduced by about 500/o because of the speed bumps and stop signs that the residents had put in courtesy of Costa Mesa three years ago. He feels that the Castaway Project will be an asset for their community and the property values will rise because of the upscale development and traffic will be mitigated by the speed bumps and stop signs that are in place. He has a Est of six signatures of homeowners involved opposing this initiation. A copy of a letter sent to Mr. Kranzley was introduced for the record. He summed up by saying that there is no reason whatsoever to turn the neighborhood into a multi - family residential. The people are taking care of • their houses. Mr. Richard Baron, 484 E. 16th St., on the Costa Mesa side but directly across the street from Mr. Budnik. He spoke up in opposition to this change basically agreeing with previous testimony. Commissioner Adams asked for clarification of addresses on the map that was provided by Staff. Mrs. Marion Rayl, 426 San Bernardino addressed the Commission in opposition to this Amendment. She stated that the traffic has been decreased in that area, and feels that the zoning change would destroy all the work that has been done. It is definitely a single family community and asks that this Amendment not be granted. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that IW Budnik did call. He was very strong on the phone. Commissioner Ridgeway continued by stating that he is not in favor of this Amendment and opened this up for Commission discussion. • -14- COMMISSIONERS 9, •yob`/ �o���-�'"��� Croy c�jygo'�p� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX Commissioner Kranzley said he was opposed to this issue. He felt that this area was a residential area with visible signs of homeowner efforts and initiative with speed bumps, stop signs and care of homes. Commissioner Selich stated that similar neighborhoods in Huntington Beach where there were influences occurring around the periphery of the neighborhood, zoning was tinkered with was disastrous. He feels that the edge of the communities should be maintained. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is obvious when you go down the multi- family area you can see deterioration in the way the property is maintained. This truly demonstrates what these folks are saying. Commissioner Gifford opposes this Amendment, stating that the City has worked hard to make it a desirable residential community and encourage livability. These residents have shown such a cohesive community on their street and have worked together to get things accomplished like speed • bumps, this is the kind of neighborhood we specifically want to preserve. Motion * Motion was made to deny the initiation of General Plan Amendment 95 -3, All ayes Part A. MOTION CARRIED, All Ayes. Public Hearing was Re- opened on Item B. 507, 509, 511 & 513 West Balboa Boulevard. Staff had nothing to add to their reports, but was available to answer Commission queries. Ms. Marcia Dossey, 3377 Via Lido, represented her client Mr. Kenneth Riley. She distributed copies of and read a letter from Mr. Riley who was unable to be in attendance. She then spoke on her own behalf and stated that as a Realtor, she has the support of potential townhouse (condo) owners for Mr. Riley's proposed project. The area in question now has 4 very old houses that are tenant occupied around $1,000 to $1,200 per month. This project would be upscale with resident ownership, the traffic pattern would change and the utilities would be placed under ground to promote a cleaner, safer environment for everyone. She summed up by • � 15 I COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL L INDEX asking the Commission to consider the benefits of improvement in the area by a mix of multi - family and single family residential properties. Commissioner Adams asked Staff about new development with construction in existing units in conformance with existing zoning, would a new development be conditioned to take vehicular access from the alleys? Mr. Edmonton answered yes it would. Therefore, Commissioner Adams continued, if the existing single family homes were razed and reconstructed, the permits would eliminate the existing curb cuts on Balboa Boulevard, Mr. Edmonton answered yes, that would be consistent with City Council policy, the applicant could appeal that to the City Council. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that this is a change of Zone from R -1 to R- 3 on West Balboa Boulevard. He commented that there are three Commissioners who live on the peninsula and are knowledgeable about the • area. Commissioner Gifford stated that her perspective and BPPAC's is that there is a great effort to promote and increase single family residential on the peninsula. To that end, a GPA was approved at the last meeting to convert the Ebell property which is immediately adjacent to this, to R -1. There are nice and new single family residential homes built on Balboa Boulevard over the last 4 or 5 years and any benefits that might be achieved by new construction on these parcels could be done within the R -1 zoning and could deliver greater benefits in terms of keeping the neighborhood as residential and owner occupied as possible. The commercial property across the street has been the subject of considerable comment about future down zoning so that the whole block on both sides would become single family residential. She continued by stating she would not be inclined to support this request. Commissioner Kranzley asked Staff how wide the lots were. Ms. Temple stated 30 feet. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that owner occupied residential units are important with past experience in relaxing the condominium conversion law • -16- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX in the City to encourage resident occupants. Balboa Boulevard is very difficult to live on He feels that a well done project would be a benefit to the neighborhood, he does agree with Staff not to do these changes on a spot basis but rather in a comprehensive study. There has been talk about in Central Balboa, reducing the commercial and perhaps creating denser residential to support the commercial, which is exactly what these people are asking for. Perhaps a comprehensive plan could be initiated that include in the Central Balboa area, a discussion of density bonuses for residential and clean out some of the non - useable commercial. Commissioner Selich stated that this is similar to a Huntington Beach area that ended up with mixtures of single family homes, duplexes, four - plexes, six - plexes, eight - plexes and 22 units over parking, in the end it came down I that the best solution was single family homes. Motion Motion was made to deny the request to initiate to amend the General Plan A es Amendment 95 -3, Part B. MOTION CARRIED, All Ayes. Public Hearing was Re- opened on Item C. Newport Beach Country Club /Corporate Plaza West Staff had nothing to add to their reports, but were available to answer Commission queries. The applicant was not present. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he had been contacted and asked Staff who the applicant was. Ms. Temple stated the applicant is Mr. O'Hill, the owner of the Newport Beach Country Club. She continued, the City's policy governing General Plan Amendments does require that Parcel specific GPA be at the concurrence of the property owner. A portion of this property is owned by the Irvine Company. When the proposal came in, Ms. Temple discussed the issue with Mr. Redwitz of the Irvine Company who indicated that the Irvine Company was in agreement with this applicant pursuing the initiation on their property at this time even though they are not a party to the project. The City does have the concurrence of both property owners in the request. • -17- COMMISSIONERS T �\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 0 LL LL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway asked if this was in writing, Ms Temple stated no, this was a telephone conversation. Motion * Motion was made to initiate acceptance to approve the General Plan All Ayes Amendment 95 -3, Part C. MOTION CARRIED, All ayes. Public Hearing was Re opined on Item D. 400 Angelita Drive, Irvine Terrace Staff had no additional comments but noted that an additional letter was received from Mr. And Mrs. John P. Connelly, property owners at 415 Avocado Avenue in opposition to this proposed Amendment. A copy of this letter was presented to the applicant. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Staff if the Irvine Terrace Homeowner Association was notified of this request and did Staff talk to them. • Ms. Temple said this is a discussion item and formal notice would occur at the hearing level if initiated. Commissioner Adams asked if they could point out the Connelly property in relationship to this site. Staff answered with an approaomate location noting it is one of the larger parcels with a common property line located on Avocado Avenue. Commissioner Ridgeway stated for the record that as a past member of the Irvine Terrace Homeowner Association there was on another occasion an attempt of a lot of El Paseo to be subdivided. The Homeowner Association was opposed to that application. Commissioner Adams stated that this case is a little different than the first two previously heard. He is not sure if the appropriateness or inappropriateness is clear. It may be worthwhile to initiate this item so that the decision could be made with the input of the Homeowner Association with the knowledge of more information of the lot sizes and more detail information from Staff. He is asking for more information. • -18- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX The applicant, Mega Voge, 400 Angelita Drive distributed copies of the parcel map and pictures showing elevation to the Commission. She would like direction from the Commission concerning the feasibility of this proposal before spending a great deal of money in formal proposals with supporting documentation. The neighbors were informed of this proposal as well as the Homeowners Association. While some of the neighbors had concerns and questions, there were no objections. A majority of the board voted in favor of the parcel split citing the unique size of the property and location. These resulting lots would be larger than the average lot in Irvine Terrace, approximately 12,329 square feet and 13,624 square feet. Several trees on the lot would have to be removed and others trimmed back resulting in view enhancement of neighbors. The two new homes would enhance the character of Irvine Terrace and would not take away the spacious feeling which exists. The parcel split would not set a precedent because there are no other lots of this configuration and size in Irvine Terrace. The Staff report raises concerns of the driveway location for Lot B. Mr. Duca had visited with the Voges and suggested at the elevation of • the slope at the property line of 4 feet 9 inches, the proposed driveway would be 18 feet wide and referenced the picture showing the driveway placement. Each of the pictures were summarily referenced in relationship to retaining walls and driveways. This configuration would require minimum excavation and would allow for retention of most of the slope. The proposed parcel split will allow them to continue living in the area they enjoy so much without taking away from the enjoyment and value of the property in their community. She would like some direction from the Commission about this proposal. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated thanking the Commission for their time. Commissioner Ridgeway explained his comment earlier about the lot on El Paseo that it was much smaller than this larger one. Mrs. Janet Aengst, 2021 Bayadere Terrace which is immediately down hill from this property and share common property line on the curve of Bayadere as it becomes Angelita then spoke. They are at a much lower elevation than the Voge residence. She spoke in opposition of this initiation. She spoke of the proximity of the homes in relationship to looking into their courtyard and house. Mrs. Aengst is concerned about • -19- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX losing their sense of privacy and spaciousness as well as the ambiance. Another question she raised is the safety issue of driving down Bayadere Terrace with a sharp turn going up Angelita at an increased rate of speed, making another driveway at the curb would be too dangerous. It would be difficult and unsafe for egress and ingress. She cited recent accidents where people had not made the turn and actually took out the street lamp. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if they were next to the Washburn house. She explained the immediate neighborhood surrounding the address in question. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if this subdivision was to go forward, any house that would be above you would be on the front of her property that faces Bayadere it would not be approaching into your viewscape or impairing privacy as you look out to the bay. • Mrs. Aengst answered no but their privacy would be impaired. Staff was asked for an opinion on a set back on that property line. Ms. Temple stated that the existing zoning would control the side yard setbacks. In this particular case it would be an R -113 district which would require a six foot side yard. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if this could be changed during this discussion. Ms. Temple stated that a zone change Amendment could be included to establish a specific set back on the side yard line. Commissioner Kranzley suggested that if the applicant did not get the subdivision and simply tore down their house and built another house on the same lot they could still hinder the privacy of Mrs. Aengst. Commissioner Adams stated the setbacks along that property line will not change with a lot split. The envelope remains the same and will not change. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that this is an initiation and we are getting a little too detailed. He asked for further continents. • -20 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL T H INDEX Mrs. Voge said she called the City to confirm the setbacks and was told it was ten feet on the side that is closest to Mrs. Aengst's house and ten feet on the back and four feet on the other side and ten feet in the front with a ten foot easement in the back and on the side as well. Commissioner Adams said that if this is initiated, Staff would work on this proposal and investigate mitigation for problems that were brought up tonight or in the General Plan Amendment process. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that these people are about to spend quite a bit of money on engineering surveys and studies. They would like to have some sort of comfort level in what the Commission will do and suggests that Staff be given direction. Commissioner Adams said we have no business giving comfort levels, how can we predict what will happen or what could happen during the General • Plan Amendment process. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there are no assurances. He suggested that the Voges are looking for some type of inclination which way the Commission would lean. Who knows, if the 384 homeowners of Irvine Terrace showed up and said they were opposed, then the Commission would be inclined to be opposed as well. Mr. Val Skoro, 1601 Bayadere Terrace stated that at the Homeowners Director Meeting the past Tuesday night, they were inclined to let the process start and get input from the neighborhood. The Association Board of Directors did not take a position of opposition to this proposal. The Commission then discussed the cost to the Applicant, timing and other implications of initiating the Amendment and gathering resident input. Motion * Motion was called to initiate General Plan Amendment 95 -3, Part D with All Ayes Staff input to include set -back wording. MOTION CARRIED, All Ayes Commissioner Pomeroy cautioned Mrs. Voge that if the majority of the Homeowner Association speaks out opposing this, it is not going to get . • -21 4 4 COMMISSIONERS \� 9110 \ LL MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 LL INDEX approved. Commissioner Ridgeway voiced the same comment and said it may take a couple of elevations and you are going to have to protect the privacy of Mrs. Aengst and build a quality project. Ms. Temple advised that this is the first step in the initiation process and it will proceed for Council consideration for initiation November 13th. If the Council concurs and agrees to an initiation then it would be for the applicant to get together with Staff to define those items of information including topographic maps, soils analysis or other items needed to understand the project and proposal. This would allow for environmental and other assessments before scheduling for Public Hearing. ■rr Public Hearing was Re- opened on Item E. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue Staff had nothing to add to their reports, but were available to answer Commission queries. Commissioner Selich asked how many units could be put on presently. Staff answered that the 2 R -2 Lots could accommodate 2 units per lot or a total of 4. IW Tod Schooler, 500 North Newport Boulevard, Suite 206, architect and representative of the Applicant addressed the Commission. He stated that he had met with Staff on how to utilize this lot with commercial properties behind it and bordered by streets and alleys. The original idea was to arrange 10 units on this piece of property, but after looking at other zoning in the area it was not feasible. Two car garages will be incorporated in the design for each unit as well as open space allowing for a "town home feel ". Commissioner Ridgeway addressed Staff stating that if this is approved for a high density town house project could some other person put up an apartment complex. Ms. Temple answered that within the limits of the density that the General Plan would be changed to, yes. Tenure of occupancy is not dictated. -22- COMMISSIONERS • spy F9�0���� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 P LL LL INDEX Commissioner Selich asked the size of the two lots. Mr. Schooler answered around 16,000 square feet total. He affirmed that the access would be from the alleys to enable the house, not the garage to be seen from the street. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that with the pre-school across the street he is concerned with the traffic and without curb and gutters and improvements on the property, it would create a confusion for both school and the entire block. He further stated that the area needs improvement. Commissioner Kranzley verified the amount of dwelling units as 8 unit apartment buildings as opposed to town houses. Commissioner Ridgeway explained that the problem the Commission has with this type of applications once approved, the applicant bails and some other guy could come in and put up some type of substandard development. . Commissioner Thomson stated that as this property is on the corner and there is curb and gutter setbacks, what is really the usable or buildable square footage. Mr. Schooler answered that he had not checked it but there is quite a bit of open area in the middle. Commissioner Thomson stated that with the loss of approximately 20% of the area on the comer, he is concerned with the impact of 8 units. Mr. Schooler said that plans will be submitted, with the intent to not maximize from the buildable area of the FAR stand point. It will not look Eke a large box, but rather a home that would be appealing. Ms. Temple stated that site plan review could accompany the General Plan and Zone change to review and condition the site plan. Commissioner Selich asked outside the property on Newport Boulevard is there anything not zoned to R -2 now? Ms. Temple answered, no. . -23- COMMISSIONERS • 0���2 �F9`9o��� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL L INDEX Commissioner Gifford stated that a City policy needs to be established that gives assurance to land owners in an area that is zoned in a particular way that if they invest in their property, spot zoning will not be done thereby changing the character of the neighborhood. The wrong message is sent if spot applications are approved or introduce a new type of zoning that is more dense into a neighborhood. The public needs confidence that our policy is consistent and they would feel more comfortable about making improvements on their property in conformance with the existing zoning. Commissioner Selich agrees with Commissioner Gifford. If this is approved, a number of other properties in the neighborhood would be coming in to make the same request. Again, it comes down to, in maintaining these areas we must be careful with what happens on the periphery of them and careful of how they are zoned. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that Old Newport Boulevard is • undergoing a comprehensive study at this time. Orange Avenue is a very wide street and is a bus route to 17th Street. This property is adjacent to a mixed use on Old Newport Boulevard. This transition piece needs help, has been undeveloped and is an eyesore therefore he supports this initiation. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is hard to have consistent zoning when you have an inconsistent City. We have to recognize that and try to maintain the economic vitality of the City and how the City changes. He supports this due to the uniqueness of its location. Commissioner Kranzley commented if there is resident dissatisfaction with the potential rezoning this would come out in Public Hearing. Motion Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment 95 -3, Part E with Ayes * * site plan review. MOTION CARRIED, 5 Ayes, 2 Noes Noes • -24 4 COMMISSIONERS l\� MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX SUBJECT: Verbal Discussion on Alcoholic Beverage Service in Specialty Food Uses. Staff was directed to draft provisions to allow alcoholic beverage service in specialty Food Uses subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Ms. Temple stated this was being brought to the Commission because of a potential application coming before the Planning Commission. The City has recently changed its Specialty Food Provisions to increase the size of the food service uses which fall within that definition. Before the change, the types of food service in specialty food typically were low keyed and often times did not even include kitchens or any great amount of preparation. With the increase we are seeing small scale restaurants or eating establishments that fall with the definition of specialty food. It is a natural ' outgrowth that some of these businesses want to serve alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there is unanimity with a Use Permit for alcoholic beverage service. Specialty Food Uses also have a rehixation of parking codes and they are considered retail for FAR uses as opposed to restaurants. The parking demand will go up with alcohol beverage service, because people will want to sit. Commissioner Kranzley wondered if we are trying to get a loop hole in the policy and when does a specialty food establishment become a restaurant. Ms. Temple stated that Commissioner Kranzley has presented the dilemma of the Staff. If we felt we were dealing with a glitch or something we really did not think of when the regulation was changed, some alterations to the code is what would be suggested. However, a lot of things have been done over the years to try and facilitate an improved business climate within the City, one being change to the specialty food use provisions. Every step creates new problems or concerns and in this particular case, Staff is looking for advice and/or direction from Commission as to whether based on experience and desires in considering specialty food uses in the beginning -25- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 Al CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL LL INDEX whether a facilitation of alcoholic beverage service should be included no matter. Does serving beer and wine with food make it a restaurant? Commissioner Ridgeway says absolutely. The line is crossed if you want to serve alcohol the establishment must redefine itself as a restaurant and no longer is the benefit of specialty food use extended. Commissioner Adams stated that a lot of specialty food use places tend to really do a lot of take out business. Serving of alcohol does not seem consistent with the majority of their business of take out and certainly encourage whatever sit down patronage to increase. It does not seem appropriate at all to allow this. Commissioner Gifford stated that there could be certain benefits to having an establishment subject to the Use Permit process. She does not have the sense that most of these places that are specialty food are really amenable to people lingering and drinking and being de facto bars. It would be more in the vein of someone warning to have a beer with their pizza, and believes the issue is the Use Permit in terms of controlling certain factors and not so much a parking issue. These specialty restaurants simply because they had the ability to serve wine and beer would not suddenly attract huge new customer bases. Therefore she would like to consider applications with ability to have controls through the Use Permit process. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the question is then is it a restaurant or a specialty food use. If it is a specialty food use then we give it relaxed standards for parking. Commissioner Gifford stated that the relaxed standards would not be inappropriate just because beer or wine might be served. The customer base is not going to be expanded tremendously because they serve beer or wine with a significant change in the operational characteristics of the restaurants rather it would be an amenity for the existing patrons. Commissioner Adams stated that Commissioner Gifford makes a good point. His dilemma is that the decision then becomes discretionary on a permit and how would we distinguish between the appropriateness for -26- COMMISSIONERS 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL L INDEX alcohol in one specialty food and inappropriateness for another. Maybe for many significant food uses it would not have a significant impact on parking or at least it would be difficult to ascertain the impact. What would the decision be based on? What would be the standard or measure? Discussion ensued by Commissioners as how and when to reclassify as restaurarrts, waiving of parking spaces, misuse by prop' owners, exemptions, etc. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that if there is a significant change in the operation then at that point in time we could reclassify and reevaluate it as a restaurant. This would address the Use Permit with the property. If it is a specialty food and it goes back to a restaurant, that means it will be a marginal restaurant with respect to parking and so on. This is where the potential misuse could come in. Deliberations ensued with regards to the definitions of specialty food service and restaurants and their particular amenities and operational characteristics. Ms. Temple addressed the Commission and explained that there is an actual permit that is issued at Staff level called a Specialty Food Permit and conditions are applied. However, with a Use Permit required for alcoholic beverage service in a specialty food use, the Commission has full opportunity to apply conditions as appropriate to control the operational characteristics of that use. The opportunity to create conditions is there, that is one of the reasons Use Permits exist. Commissioner Pomeroy recognizes the problems that are inherent in the old buildings. We should not create restaurants where we keep changing parking or doing other things. It is obvious there are certain types of specialty restaurants where beer and wine service might not be a problem. We must come up with a method that will allow that and let Staff come up with some of the reasons and guidelines for it and make a recommendation to us. • -27- COMMISSIONERS s °2 c�y�'no�gov CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 LL L INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway stated Staff had adequate discussion from the Commission and asked Staff to draft alterations to the Code to address this issue. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - A verbal report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Mr. Delino stated that on the meeting of September 23, 1995, Council acted on Bars/Theater and Nightclubs; Auto Repair in Mariner's Mile; BID's for Corona del Mar and Marine Avenue; Thunderbird Club and added Window Replacements Other Than Glass as a Nuisance. • b.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich deferred report until next meeting. c.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - Commissioner Gifford reported she was unable to attend. Mr. Delino stated that the Committee was attempting to reconcile recommendations with the EDC. d.) Verbal report on outdoor dining permits approved. - Mr. Tom Hyans objected allowing Woody's Wharf to have additional outdoor dining due to excessive noise emanating from the establishment that echoes across the Bay. He stated his concerns at not having a vehicle to know when these changes are occurring. The Commission discussed his concerns. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None • -28- COMMISSIONERS \101,11, 1 3V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 L L INDEX f.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and Staff report - None g.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Pomeroy asked to be excused from October 19th meeting. h.) Discussion of Staff report format - None ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. MICHAEL KRANZLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . -29-