Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/1972COMMISSIONERS RO CALL z o Present Absent • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: March 16, 1972 MINUTES INDEX x x x x x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. Baade, Asst. City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker; Asst. Community Development Dir. William R. Laycock, Zoning Administrator Rodney L. Gunn, Senior Planner Helen Herrmann On motion of Commissioner Agee, seconded by Commis- sioner Hazewinkel, and carried, the minutes of February 17, 1972 were approved as written. Chairman Dosh noted that requests had been received to remove Items 1, 2 and 10 from the calendar and a further request to continue Item 8 until April 6, 1972 and that he would entertain separate motions on these four items. Item #1. FINAL MAP Request approval of the Final Map of a previously approved Tentative Map subdividing 26.428 acres TR—A-7707. into sixty -two lots for development as single- family residential, seven lettered lots for a waterway, landscaped areas and a marina, and one REMOVED numbered lot for future development. FROM CAL NDAR Location: Portion of Block 94 of Irvine's Sub- division located northerly of Bayside Drive between Marine Avenue and Linda Isle Drive. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Engineers: Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates Costa Mesa Page 1. COMMISSIONERS s �y N f0 w RO CALL i 3 Motion Second Ayes Absent • Motion Second All Ayes Motion o nd Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 16. 1972 INDEX T Owner: Same as applicant. x This item was removed from the calendar at the x request of the applicant. x Commissioner Glass joined the meeting. Item #2. Request to combine three lots into one parcel for development as multiple - family residential. RESUBDI- VIN N3 f Location: Lots 12, 13 & 26, Block 14, Balboa Tract, located at 925 and 927 East REMOVED Balboa Boulevard and 922 East Ocean FRZN__ Front between East Balboa Boulevard CAL NDAR and East Ocean Front and between "A" and "B" Streets. Zone: R -3 Applicant: Goldie Joseph, Newport Beach Owner: Same as.applicant. x This item was removed from the calendar at the x request of the applicant. Item #8. Request to permit a Planned Residential Develop- USE PERMI ment of 494 units on 37.1 acres of land. NO. 1585 Location: Portion of Lots 1 and 2, Tract 463, CONTINUED located on the westerly side of NTI� L Superior Avenue, north of Pacific 6 Coast Highway and at the southerly end of Monrovia Avenue. Zone: R -3 -13-2 and Unclassified Applicant: Robert H: Grant'Corp., Anaheim Owner: Same as applicant x This item was continued until April 6, 1972, at. the request of the staff, in order for the applica t to furnish more information pertaining to this project. Page 2. T COMMISSIONERS v y a a S � CALL N fDS 3 Motion Second Al Ayes • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 16. 1972 INDEX T Item #10. Request to permit a 10' x 52' trailer to be used USE PERMI as a temporary sales office. X87_ REMOVED 7759— TTFENDAR Location: Portion of Block 97 of Irvine's Sub- division located on the east side of the intersection.of San Joaquin Hills Road and Spyglass Hill Road Zone: P -C Applicant: Spyglass Hill, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach X, This item was removed from the calendar at the x request of the applicant. Item #3, Request to amend a condition of approval so as to permit the construction of residential structures which are sound attenuated to achieve an.average maximum interior noise of 60 dBA instead of the previously approved 56 dBA level. TRACTS and CONDITION Location: On the northerly side of San Joaquin Hills Road, westerly of Spyglass Hill APPROVAL Road, in Harbor View Hills. ME} N)F Zone: P -C Applicant: William D. Lusk, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport. Beach Chairman Dosh reviewed the application which had been.continued from the previous meeting, and asked the staff if they had anything to add to the previous report: Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker noted that the staff had contacted the City of Fountain Valley which.has within its boundaries the "mile square facility" which is a helicopter. landing facility;.however the terrain is relatively flat and the helicopters do not traverse areas where the differences in elevation between the aircraft.and the ground elevation are similar to those existing in the City of Newport Beach, par- ticularly in the . a. rea ....under_...caasider.a.ti.on_; there- Page 3. T COMMISSIONERS to N � m CALL 3 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 16. 1972 MINUTES INDEX fore the City of Fountain Valley, which probably has more helicopters flying over it than any other City in the County, does not experience a problem. Mr. Hewicker further stated that when experts in the field of acoustics took various meter readings adjacent to the helicopter facility, they found they were not objectionable and, therefore, did no require additional attenuation above and beyond normal construction techniques. Commissioner Heather inquired whether she should abstain from this discussion as she had been absen at the previous meeting. She noted that she had read the reports supplied by the staff. Chairman Dosh stated that as the discussion at the previous meeting had been general in character, he felt she should participate in this hearing. Mr. William Lusk was present and introduced Dr. John Hilliard, head of the Noise and Acoustics Division of Ramberg and Lowry. • Chairman Dosh pointed out that the question under consideration was whether the difference between 56 and 60 dBA was material enough to require Mr. Lusk to make construction changes. Dr. Hilliard discussed with the Commission what was being done around various parts of the country and the reasons for the decision on a certain dBA level. He.noted that the HUD recommendations that were now in effect were at 65 dBA which meant that if, over a large.period of the day, the noise in a community or home,exceeded 65 dBA, then attenuatio should be provided so it would be below that point. He noted further that he had been recording on a sound level meter the sound level in the Chambers during the discussions, particularly the voices, and in most cases these registered at 65 dBA, which would give an indication of the relative loudness in the home. On. that basis he felt it was only reasonable to assume that 60 dBA would be more than adequate to use as a standard of maximum level that would be permitted. If 56 dBA were used, this would be more stringent than that used by most other communities and Federal regulations which have had a lot of experience in.the previous few years. • Dr. Hilliard answered at length questions of the Commission regarding the differences between dBA and PNd6, pointing out that:the differential for all types of noise was considered to be at.less. Page 4. COMMISSIONERS 5 O £ c aS CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marr.h 16. 1972 MINUTES INDEX than 3 %; that if the Commission would take his word for it, then the ratio between PNdB and dBA remained at 13 dB; if not, then they would have to go into the theory and the individual data to show why this were true. Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker pointed out that since the subdivisions in questio had been approved., the area of the helicopter path had been shifted approximately 1000 feet.to the west and.that the flights of the helicopters durin inclement weather had been changed to 800 feet above mean sea level and inbound flights during that time were not authorized. Mr. Hewicker in- dicated on a map the changes in the flight pattern . Mr: Steigerwald asked construction questions of the developer as to the thickness of the dry wall. Upon being questioned by the Commission, Director of Community Development Hogan stated that if the . Commission at this time established 60 dBA as the sound attenuation level for inside home, sound a then this would be the standard generally adhered to unless it were found in future studies that there be reason for a change. Following further.discussion, the request to amend a condition of approval so as to permit the con- struction of residential structures which are sound attenuated to achieve an average maximum interior noise of 60 dBA instead of the previously Motion x approved 56 dBA level, was recommended for.approva , Second x subject to the following conditions: Ayes x x x x x x Abstain x 1. That exterior measurements from four representative lots within the tracts. be made and established to be less. than 82 dBA, to the satisfaction of the staff. 2. Upon completion of construction, for the information of the Commission, sound levels under the same conditions shall, be provided from the interior of the homes on the lots as specified in Condi- tion No. 1. • Commissioner Agee suggested that since the City di not own a sound level meter like the one used by D . Hilliard and since the City was very concerned about noise, it might he worth while to explore. the possibility of the purchase of such equipment Page 5. COMMISSIONERS s hdA6rivaiDeNA, CALL �s 3 Motion Second All Ayes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 16, 1972 INDEX if it were not prohibitively expensive, and that a staff member be trained to take such measurements. Item #4. Request approval of the subdivision of 14.773 TENTATIVE acres into five lots for commercial development. MAP TRACT 07 Location: Portion of Block 50, Irvine's Subdi- vision located on the west side of APPROVED MacArthur. Boulevard, southerly of Corinthian Way (Newport Place). Zone: P -C Applicant: Emkay Development Company, Newport-Be ch Engineers: Raub, Bein, Frost and Assoc:, Costa Me sa Owner: Same as applicant. Chairman Dosh reviewed this tentative map with the Commission and Mr. Robert Bein represented the applicant and stated that they had read the staff report and were in agreement with the conditions recommended by the staff. Following discussion,. Tentative Map Tract 7770 was x recommended to the City Council for approval,.sub -. x ject.to the following conditions:. 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That the boundary of the final tract.map be checked by the County Surveyor before being submitted to the City for approval. 3. That Section 19.16.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding map scale be waived provided maps drawn accurately to a scale of 1" = 100' are furnished to the Public Works Department immediately after approval of the final map. 4. That all grading be done in accordance with grading plans-and reports approved . by the Public Works..Director and a qualified Soils.Engineer. Upon completion of the .grading, the Civil Engineer and the Soils Engineer shall certify that the grading has been completed according to the plans and Page 6. COMMISSIONERS 4 � N F �O (0 f i Re CALL N��N�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 16, 1972 MINUTES INDEX the requirements of the grading ordinance. Reproducible copies of the "as built" grading plans on. standard size sheets shall be furnished to the .Public Works Department 5. That public utility easements be a minimum of 10 feet wide, with wider easements pro- vided where required by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard, except at street intersections, be.dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That all street .design be subject to re- view by the Traffic Engineer.and modifica- tions provided as required. S. That the types and locations of street trees.be provided to the specifications of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation • Director; that the standard inspection fee be paid; and that a parkway irriga- tion system with a sprinkler head for each street tree be constructed. 9. That all recommendations, requirements and conditions of approval for Zoning Amendment Nos. 273 and 305 be considered binding on the Tentative Map for Tract No. 7770. 10. Street names as shown on the Tentative Map for Tract No. 7770 shall be con- sidered approved and shall be reflected on the instruments dedicating the streets to the public. 11. All improvements constructed within the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved encroachment permit issued by the State Division of Highways. 12. That the developer shall be responsible for all precautionary actions necessary to protect the quality of the waters.of • Newport Bay and Harbor during grading and construction operations, and shall prepare and submit- erosion control plans and specifications.designed to prevent deposition of sediments. Page 7. COMMISSIONERS S N CALL m > • Motion Second All Ayes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Marrh 16. 1Q79 TNnFY Item #5. FINAL MAP Request approval of the Final Map of•a previously approved Tentative Map subdividing 14.773 acres into five lots for commercial development. 77 T — Location: Portion of Block 50, Irvine's Subdi- APPROVED vision, located on the west side of MacArthur Boulevard, southerly of Corinthian Way (Newport Place). Zone: P -C Applicant: Emkay Development Company, Newport.Be ch Engineers: Raub, Bein, Frost and Assoc., Costa M sa Owner: Same as applicant Chairman Dosh noted that this was the final map - of the previously approved tentative map (Agenda Item No. 4). Following a short discussion, Final Map Tract 7770 x was recommended to the City Council for approval x subject to the same conditions imposed on the Tentative Map. Item #6. Request to create one•lot with a gross area of TENTATIVE 0.439 acres for condominium development. P1F7C TRACT NT.-77n- Location: Lots 7 and 9 and Portions of Lots 5, 11 and 13 of Block 231 of Corona CONTINUED del Mar, located on the westerly side UNTiE- of Dahlia Avenue (vacated), northerly PR 6 of.Seaview Avenue. Zone: R -3 Applicant: Freeman Ray Company, Costa Mesa Engineer: Raub, Bein Frost and Assoc., Costa Mesa Owner: Same as applicant. Chairman Dosh reviewed this application with the Commission and Zoning Administrator Laycock showed slides of the subject property and surrounding. area. City Engineer Nolan answered questions regarding Page 8. COMMISSIONERS 1 .4 iwts & CALL Motion Second All Ayes • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 16. 1972 INDEX the existing 14 foot wade easements along the northerly and westerly property lines and the 50 foot wide easement along the front of the property (vacated Dahlia Avenue). Mr. Robert Bein was present and addressed the Commission; also Mr. George Wiseman, the architect who presented plans showing the intended develop- ment. The Commission discussed this proposed tentative map at length and it was the consensus of. opinion that since the staff.had not had an opportunity to review the plans and also because of the ques- x tions regarding the easements, that the matter should be continued until April 6, 1972. Commissioner Adkinson asked to be excused during discussion of the following item inasmuch as he represents one of the individuals involved in the application. Item V, USE PERMIT Request to permit a forty -two foot.high (to top of mechanical appurtenances), eighteen unit condo- N . minium to be constructed in a C -2 District. CONDITION - Location: Parcels.A, B, & C of Resubdivision LLY No. 256, located at 631 and 633 Lido AP7RUVED Park Drive on the easterly side of Lido Park Drive, north of 28th Street. Zone: C -2 Applicant: Daniel Olmstead, Newport Beach Owners: Daniel Schwartz, Encino, Beverly. Schwartz, Beverly Hills, Fred MacDonald, Newport Beach and Les Baxter, Beverly Hills Chairman Dosh reviewed the application with the Commission and outlined alternative site develop- ment concepts suggested by the staff. Assistant Director Hewicker addressed the Commis- sion regarding the suggestions.made by the staff and commented that one of the concerns was whether . or not there should be public access to the water, this being waterfront property. Mr. Hewicker noted further that since this was intended as a condomini m Page 9. COMMISSIONERS 5 0 m u a o Q,ym.S R• CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 16, 1972 MINUTES INDEX project, a tentative and final subdivision map . would be required and in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act, public access would be re- quired. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Hewicker read into the record a portion of the State Subdivision Map Act regarding the approval of tentative and final maps requiring reasonable public access on ocean coastline or bay shoreline lots within or at a reasonable distance from the subdivision; the definition of "reasonable public access" was also read into the record. Zoning Administrator Laycock showed slides of the subject property as well as adjacent. property. A discussion ensued regarding the requested zero side yard setbacks, the separation between build- ings and the question of waterfront access. Mr. Daniel Olmstead, the applicant, was present and answered questions of the Commission regarding this project. Mr. Stewart Woodard, the architect, • was also present and stated that the project as proposed would be more viable and meaningful to the community than one having side yard setbacks., which tended to become cluttered with trash; that an open central space of from 8 to 24 feet would be more attractive than a.solid building with 4 foot side yard setbacks. He noted further that it was anticipated that there would be future development on adjacent property and that substantial fire resistive construction on the property line would be more desirable than 4 foot side yard setbacks. Upon being questioned, Mr. Olmstead stated that the open center space in this development would not have public access. Mr. John Curci, representing Curci- Turner Co., addressed the Commission as to the State Subdivision Map Act requiring reasonable public access to water- front property; he questioned whether this applied to a project of this kind or only to•the subdivisio of raw land.. Mr. Herman Tanske of 633 Lido Park Drive addressed the Commission and stated he-had an equity in two strips.just beyond the subject property which he • was considering developing as apartments and this might very well involve some.of the other adjacent properties. Page 10. COMMISSIONERS s N f i S J CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 16, 1972 MINUTES INDEX Following further lengthy discussion, Chairman Dosh closed the public hearing; however Mr. Woodard stated that they desired to discuss some of the Motion x other recommended conditions and the public hearing Second x was reopened. Ayes x x x x x x Abstain x Following this discussi,on,.the hearing was closed and Use Permit Application No. 1584 was approved, Motion x subject to the following conditions: Second x Ayes xx x xx x 1. There shall be no building or balcony Abstain x encroachment in the 10 foot front yard (waterfront) setback. 2. There shall be a minimum 5 foot setback from Lido Park Drive, to the 11 foot high wall indicated on the applicant's plot plan. 3. That standard street improvements be con- structed on the Lido Park Drive frontage. • 4. That a suitable agreement and surety be provided to guarantee completion of the street improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to com- pletion of the improvements. 5. That the types and locations of street trees along Lido Park Drive be provided to the specifications of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and that the standard inspection fees of $3.00 per tree be paid. 6. That landscape plans, including watering facilities, be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance. of a building permit. 7. That trash areas shall be enclosed with walls and integrated into the building design, or all trash storage shall be within the building. Commissioner Glass stated for the record that he hoped this problem of residential uses in commercial zones could be handled-in a revised zoning ordinanc so that developers could adhere to commercial side yard setbacks provided that the building was con - structed of the proper materials, with proper air, light and ventilation and proper fire resistive construction. Page 11. COMMISSIONERS s Fy p 1N ry J• N N f A � s.fi� 5 CALL • Motion Second V Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES M�....L lc ln'ln tanry I'lui YII' I V J r Chairman'Dosh called a five minute recess and the Commission reconvened at 10:35 P.M. with all. members present. Item #9. Request to permit a duplex to be constructed in a USE PERMIT C -1 District. Further request to establish a ten HT-78-6- foot front yard setback and a five foot rear yard setback. CONDITION - L Location: Lot 20, Block 220, Section "A" of A POVED Newport Beach Tract, located at 216 - 21st Street on the east side of 21st Street north of West Balboa Boulevard. Zone: C -1 Applicant: William C. Hoffman, Huntington Beach Owner: Same as applicant. Chairman Dosh reviewed the application with the Commission. Assistant Director of Community Development Hewicke noted that because of the extent of residential development in this area, it was the suggestion of the staff that the Planning Commission initiate a resolution to rezone these lots to R -2 and that a resolution had been prepared for adoption later in the meeting if the Commission deemed it desirable. Mr. Earl Laughlin represented the applicant and addressed the Commission regarding the application. He stated that it would be advantageous for Mr. Hoffman to know if this property were to be rezoned and when it-would be set for hearing as he could then consider using building materials to comply with residential, rather than commercial, zoning. He was advised that the public hearing would probably be set for April 20th; also of the time element involved befowe a zone change became effective. x Following discussion, the application was approved x subject to the following condition: 1. That the development shall comply with the plans as submitted, except for minor modifications which may be approved by the Department of Community Development. Page 12. 40 CALLI • Motion Second Al Ayes • NERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 16. 1972 INDEX Request to permit a triplex to be constructed on Item #11. VARIANCE an R -2 parcel. -N0-7-1-MT DENIED Location: Lot 1, Block 733, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 701 Goldenrod on the northerly side of Goldenrod opposite 4th Avenue. Zone: R -2 Applicant: Dickson Shafer, Corona del Mar Owner: George S. Freeman, Newport Beach Chairman Dosh reviewed the application with the Commission, as well as the requirements for the granting of a variance. A communication of protes from P. L. Hummell of 416 Heliotrope Avenue was read into the record. Mr. Shafer, the applicant; was present and address d the Commission in support of his request. Zoning Administrator Laycock showed slides of the property and adjacent areas. x Following discussion, the application was denied x because it was felt.that the requirements for the granting of a variance had not been met and that it was improper to permit a triplex in an R -2 District. Item #12. Commission's review and hearing of Interim Parks INTERIM and Recreation Plan for adoption as an Element.of P�KS the Newport Beach General Plan. Ei�.`REATIOP Director of Community Development Hogan announced LAN at the outset of the public hearing that subse- quest to the approval of the Interim Parks and CONTINUED Recreation Plan by the Parks, Beaches and Recrea- UNTIL tion Commission, the Council had approved a bond APRIL 20 issue to be presented to the voters; and that additional park sites which had not been considers at the time of adoption of the Interim Parks and Recreation Plan by the Parks, Beaches and Recrea- tion Commission had been added to the plan.by the staff for inclusion in that bond issue. Mr. Hogan pointed out that the bond issue would not include Page 13. COMMISSIQNERS N � F O £.w CALL m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mme..... L. 7L 1lf��f MINUTES INDEX specific properties, however, since these sites would have to be considered in making estimates of the amounts required for the acquisition of park sites within the City, the Commission should be apprised of these parks and make a decision as to whether they should be added to the Interim Parks and Recreation Plan. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director Stewart addressed the Commission regarding these changes; one would be on the Banning property for a neigh- borhood park, and the other would be on the west side of the Upper Bay at approximately 23rd Street Senior Planner Gunn also addressed the Commission regarding the proposed amendments to the Interim Parks and Recreation Plan and pointed out that the City Council, at its study session, had asked the Commission to consider the "Fun Zone" property on the Peninsula in addition to these two sites. Mr. Stewart noted that the "Fun Zone" property • would be considered by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission its at meeting on March 28, 1972. Mr. Stewart, aided by Mr. Gunn, reviewed in detail the changes that had been made in the Interim Park and Recreation Plan by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. The Planning Commission discussed these revisions at length, suggesting additional changes, and it was the consensus of opinion that since the "Fun Zone" property would be considered by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on March 28th, that this item should be continued until April 20, 1972 so that the Planning Commission could conside the Plan in its entirety. Motion x The public hearing was continued until April 20, Second x 1972. All Ayes Resolution No. 750, being a Resolution of the RESOLU- Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach to consider certain amendments to Title 20 of the NU-7750 Newport Beach Municipal Code, to wit: a zone change from C -1 to R -2 on Lots 18 through 20, and the northerly 12.5 feet of Lot 21 of Block 219; Lots 4 through 12 and Lots 18 through 27 of Block 220; and Lots 4 through 8 of Block 221, Page 14. NERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES CALL,31 1� 1,�,`-s1�\ March 16, 1972 INDE% Motion Second All Aye x x Section A of Newport Beach Tract, was adopted and set for public hearing on April 20, 1972. On motion of Commissioner Heather, seconded by Commissioner Hazewinkel, and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. / PC Ja ie Secretary Newport Beach City Planning Commission • • Page 15.