Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/1981 (2)COMMISSIONERS i0 7C N 7 X I X1 XIK Ix REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Timer 7:30 p.m. Date: June 4, 19.81 Of All Present. MINUTES INDEX EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current.Planning Administrato Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary Request to create three parcels of land for Item I single family residential development purposes where two parcels presently exist, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. RESUB- LOCATION: A portion of Lot 38 of the Newport NO. 686 Heights Tract, located at 717, 717, and 723 Irvine Avenue, on the southwesterly side of Irvine Avenue between Laurel Place and Continued Holly Lane in Newport Heights. to June 18, 1981 ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Quist, Inc., Irvine OWNERS: Carl and Patricia M. Neisser and Edward B. and Lorraine F. Ball, Costa Mesa ENGINEER: Quist, Inc., Irvine Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this item. He explained the June 4, 1981 M W�D w x y' City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX staff's recommendation for deni:aland also dis- cussed•the merits of the application. He stated that a petition in support of the project has been submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Paul Reed in support of the project. He also stated that.Cliff Haven Community Association has sub - mitted a letter dated June 3, 1981, in opposition to the project. The public hearing.opened in connection.with this item and Mr. Bud Quist, the applicant, stated that this.proposal will be upgrading the neigh - borhood by removing the three older homes on the two lots and constructing:three homes which will blend with the area. He stated that the devia- tions.are being requested because the parcels are on corner lots. He referred to the-petition with 29 signatures.in favor.of the project and submitted two additional letters of support from Hazel Lightbody and Doris Haid. He added that they have received 100 percent support from the residents within 300 feet of the proposed project. Mr. Carl Neisser, the owner, stated that he is in favor of change that will not sacrifice the good.of the community. He.stated that Irvine Boulevard, with its traffic and the high school, does not lend itself to the typical kind of single - family residential.development. He stated that the homes to be constructed on these lots must be affordable, which calls for the sub- division of the two lots.into three lots. He added that it wou.l.d:not be financially feasible to construct only two homes on the lots. Mr. Del Hart, resident of 2318 Laurel Place, stated that the upgrading of these properties as proposed, would be an asset to the area. He stated.that the buildings that currently exist on these lots a.re a detriment to the neighborhood Mr. Tony Szyrajew, resident of 2227 Holly Lane, appeared in favor of this project and stated that there is adequate space on these lots to construct three dwellings. • 11111111 -2- Motion 0 X 00 June 4, 1981 City of Beach MINUTES .Motion..was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 686, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "B" of the staff report. Commissioner Beek stated that the concerns ex- pressed by the neighbors r.el.ates. to the eyesore and nuisance characteristics of the present use on the lots. He expressed his concern that this proposal will increase the density by 50 percent. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the existing buildings are in poor condition and there is undesirable activity,.code enforcement and policing may settle the use problem. He stated that approval of this request may set a.pre- cedent for similar lots in the area. Mr. Bud Quist presented to the Commission a map of the area which depicted the.surrounding land Uses and character of the area. He stated that these particular lots have a peculiar shape, as compared to the other lots in the area. Commissioner Balalis stated that the other lots in the area are building single family homes. Mr. Quist stated that because of the price for the land and the improvements, it would not be, economically feasible to construct only two dwelling units. Mr. Del Hart stated that the lots as they cur- rently exist, are undesirable. He urged the Commission to consider the 'desires as expressed by the residents who live in the area.. Mr. Carl Neisser stated that the granting of this request will not seta precedent in the area. Chairma.n Haidinger asked Mr. Neiss.er to explain why these lots are unique. Mr. Neisser stated that there are not many lots in the area, such as these, that could accommodate three dwelling units and still be within keeping of the character in the neighborhood. -3- INDEX K 0 x o, Ego _Wa X d N X N 7 June 4, 1981 Of r MINUTES INDEX Mr. Rick Neisser, the owner-''s Son, stated that in researching the financing, it is highly improbable that the construction of two dwelling units of these lots would be economically feasibl for the buyer and the developer.. He stated that Irvine Boulevard carries an immense amount of traffic daily and that these hots front onto the boulevard. He added that each case considere by the Planning Commission must be determined on its own merits. Ms. Florence Vallejo, resident of 2201 Holly Lane voiced her support for the proposed project. Ms. Barbara Quist, representing Quist, Inc., stated that revitalization and redevelopment in needed areas is necessary to continue the liveli- hood of the neighborhood: She stated that this proposal will also be providing homes in Newport Beach that are affordable for families to buy. • Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Neisser if he would cooperate with the City with regard to inspecting the existing dwelling units. Mr. Neisser respond ed yes. Substitute Substitute motion was made to continue Resubdivi- Motion X sion No. 686 to the meeting of June 18, 1981, in which time the City will inspect the site and report back on any deficiences and suggest corrections. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she would not be in favor of the substitute motion in that this request is not unreasonable for the area and has the support of the neighborhood residents Ayes XX Chairman Haidinger's substitute motion for a Noes X X continuance was now voted `on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission.recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. • IIIIIIII -4- ' COMMISSIONERS June 4, 1981 MINUTES ,Ew an t Beach INDEX SUBJECTS: General Plan Amendment 81 -1 (Public Hearing Request to amend the Newport Beach General Plan for the Banning- Newport Ranch and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Amendment No. 2 to the Local Coastal Program Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Plan and the adoption of an Implementing Ordinance for the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Amendment No. 561 (Public Hearin Request to establish a Planned • Community Development Plan and Development Standards for the Banning- Newport Ranch Planned Community. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider Traffic Study for the Banning- Newport Ranch Planned Community. LOCATION: Property located northerly of West Coast Highway and approximately 360 feet westerly of Superior Avenue in the West Newport Area. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Beeco, Ltd., Newport Beach • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OWNERS: Beeco Ltd., and the Newport -Mesa Unified School District, Newport Beach -5- COMMISSIONERS June 4, 1981 MINUTES CL W W City of Newport Beach INDEX Item Nos. 2 thru 5 were heard concurrently, due, to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items, and Mr. David Neish of Urban Assist, Inc.., representing the applicants, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Neish described to the Commission the proposed.land use and design concepts which would allow the construction of professional offices, light industrial develop- ment, neighborhood commercial development, resi- dential dwelling units, and associated public and private facilities. He stated that the primary objective of the Banning- -Newport Ranch Is for the successful integration of existing site features and surrounding land uses. Mr:'Bill Banding, President of•Beeco, Ltd., presented a slide.presentation which depicted the surrounding land uses and the existing character of the area. Mr.-Banning addressed • the mitigation measures which have been incor- porated into the proposed project which include traffic circulation and improvements, parks, drainage,.siltation, geology, grading -and views. He stated that the property can be developed responsibly to mitigate these concerns. Dr. John Nicoll, Superintendent of the Newport - Mesa Unified School District, co- applicant with Beeco, Ltd., appeared before the Commission, along with Judy Franco, member of the Board of Education, and expressed their support for the proposed project. I.n response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Banning stated that some of these issues, such as specific park locations, can be solved prior to the tentative tract level, in order to suit the needs of.the residents. Mrs. Louise Greeley, representing the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, stated that they have thoroughly studied the environmental impact • 11111111 -6- June 4, 1981 9 c n 3 0 y City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX report (EIR) for the Banning- Newport Ranch. She referred to her letter dated May 29, 1981, which addresses the concerns of the various study group She stated that portions of the EIR are conflict- ing and other portions are insufficiently docu- mented. She also stated that they are not totally satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures. She suggested that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission be requested to study and make recommendations on the need for play- grounds and view parks adjacent to Newport Crest. Mr. Jack Walley, resident of the area, asked if 15th Street will be widened. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the widening of 15th Street is not a portion of this particula development. Ms. Barbara Cope, resident. of 16 Kialoa Court, expressed concerns relating to increased traffic and noise levels and a decrease in open space . and, air quality. She stated that the 35 members of the Newport Crest Youth Club have worked very hard to obtain and maintain the open space. She stated thatthe proposed project will not upgrade the West Newport area. Mr. Ron Dick, resident of 843 W. 15th Street, stated that the proposal is intelligent and provides -a good transition for the area. Mr. Makbar Saloma, resident of 15 Gretel Court, delivered a presentation of overhead projector transparencies which depicted concerns relating to traffic, noise and air quality. He stated that this proposal will reduce the quality of life and Value of the homes in this area. Mr. Saloma stated that he would make available to the department staff, a written list of his concerns and questions. Mr. Mike Johnson,.resident of 220 Nice Lane, stated that this development will be located in the Newport /Inglewood fault area. He expressed • IIIIIIII -7- COMMISSIONERS June 4, 1981 Fill m Citv of Nei MINUTES Beach INDEX a concern relating to the fire danger which increase. in %density. to be studied further, of the Fire Department the existing oil pumps and may occur to the proposed He stated that this needs along with the adequacy facilities in this area. Dr. Matthew Ross, resident of 10 Summerwind Court expressed his concerns relating.to the existing drainage problems in the area and discussed the nature of the soil which exists in the Newport Crest area. He stated that the drainage issue for this proposed development must be addressed further. Mr. Charles Mallinson, resident of 17 Summerwind Court, stated that the current zoning for the area is four dwelling units per acre. He then expressed his concern that this proposal will triple the density factor of the area. Mr..Dick Clucas, resident of 4403 Seashore Drive, • stated that the Commission must consider the cumulative effects from all the developments, such as Newport Center, the Ford properties, the Dunes, and so on, which will impact the City of Newport Beach. He stated that the majority of the development for the Banning Newport Ranch should be single family residential. He stated that he would be in favor of a neighborhood/ commercial use if i.t.were limited to actually serving the immediate nei.ghborhood. Mr. George Felton,.resident.of 11 Summerwind Court, expressed his concern that there is no recommendation in this report for an additional fire. department facility to service the proposed development. He stated that the EIR must address this issue further. Mr. Leonard Davis, resident of 10 Goodwill Court, stated that preservation of the existing views from Newport Cr..est must be considered. He suggested that the site be graded lower to pre- serve these views, or that the open space park be situated in the view areas. � IIIIIIII -8- June 4, 1981 MINUTES n D7 �D R- W °' - City of Newport Beach N (D N 3 Dr. Don Udall, resident of Newport Crest, ex- pressed his concern relating to the increase in air pollution that will result with this proposal He also stated that the density should not be increased, over what is currently permitted. Dr. Barry Chaitin, resident of 1212 Sand Key in Corona del Mar, and member of the Board of Psychiatry, explained to the Commission the soc.ia aspects and impacts that must be addressed when." considering urban development and increased density. He recommended that the Commission re- evaluate the costs benefits of the development in human terms. Mr. David Goff., resident of.5212 River Avenue and President of the Lido Sands Community Association referred to his previously submitted letter and discussed impacts relating to traffic, noise, pollution, drainage, law enforcement, fire service and educational. facilities. Ms. Ronnie Resney, Ms. Carey Moore and Ms. Amy Weaver, members of the Newport Crest Youth Club appeared before the Commission. They expressed thei.r.concerns relating to additional traffic and requested a park facility and open space for their use. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would like to know why a park has not been planned pre- viously for this area. Ms. Brenda Ross, member of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, referred to their memo dated June 4, 1981, which urges the Commission to retain the existing land designation in this area. Motion X Motion was made to continue these items to the regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 18, 1981, at 9:30 p.m. The Commission requested that the staff report for the next meeting comment on.the following issues: ME I� LJ INDEX n LJ All Ayes ,MISSIONERS June 4, 1981 � W o g D x 0 1 City of Newport Beach 1) Ticonderoga Street 2) Parks 3) Road Improvements 4) Drainage 5) Geologic Hazards 6) Adequacy of the Draft EIR 7). Neighborhood Character 8) Minutes of previous actions 9) .Fire Protection 10) View Preservation 11) Land Use 12) Traffic Study 13) Cost /Revenue X X X X Chairman Haidinger's motion for a continuance was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:55 p.m. and reconvened at 11:05 p.m. • IIIIIIII '° MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS] June 4, 1981 MINUTES 1 " w D_ z Beach ITEM 6: General Plan Amendment 81 -2 and Amendment No. 2 to the Local asta Program (Discussion) Request to set for public hearing during October 1981, Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, including: a) Caltrans West b) Fifth Avenue parcels c) Freeway Reservations West (Big Canyon) d) Coast Highway Residential /Commercial e) Campus Drive Industrial /Office f) Park sites • INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion X Motion-was-made to continue Item No. 6 to the regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 9, 1981. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jim Huff, resident of Newport Crest, stated that the residents in attendance of tonight's meeting would like to discuss the CALTRANS West proposal. Substitute Substitute motion was made to reconsider the Motion X prior action and reschedule the hearings for Ayes X X X GPA 81 -1 and GPA 81 -2 to the meeting of July 9, Noes X X X X 1981, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Motion Commissioner Allen withdrew her motion for a Withdrawn X continuance. -il- INDEX ppO,, OT 7 N Jr 'N • u June 4, 1981 M Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the decision before the Planning Commission this evening is to determine whether or not the amendments considered, are warranted to set for a full public hearing. Mr. Robert Beaman, resident.of Newport Crest, stated,that the CALTRANS West parcel should be considered along with the Beeco proposal. He stated that park designations and environmental open space must be considered for both of these parcels: Mr. Carl Cheadle, resident of 29 Encore Court. and Vice- President of the Newport Crest Home- owners Association, read a letter to the Com -. mission from the Board of Directors, which strongly urged denial of the CALTRANS West proposal. The concerns related to multiple - family residential uses, need for open space and parks, access, traffic.impacts, noise and air.pollution and view preservations. MINUTES Mr. Bill Ficker, of Ficker and Ruffing Architects requested that Item d) Coast Highway Residential/ Commercial be set for public hearing after the completion of the environmental documentation. Mr. David Simmes, representing the Department of Transportation, stated that the proposal for the CALTRANS West parcel will not cause a sub - stantial impact on the community„ but will provide parks and retention of views. Mr. Todd Dailey, resident of Newport Crest, stated that the funding for any future park or open space area, must be studied carefully. Mr..Ron McMahon, representing the owner of Item g) Buck Gully Residential, requested that this item be set for public hearing, to consider the viability of a multi- family residential development on the site. -12- III 01 COMMISSIONERS I June 4, 1981 MINUTES 9 o = of Newport Beach M ALL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Mr. Russ Benedict, resident of Newport Crest, expressed his desire for park space. He stated that the CALTRANS,West property in conjunction with the Beeco property, provides a unique opportunity to solve the open space problem. Motion Motion was made that Item a) CALTRANS West, not Ayes X X X Y be included in the October 1981 General Plan Noes X YX Amendment, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made that Item b) Fifth Avenue Parcels Ayes X YX X X be initiated for public hearing, which MOTION Noes X CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made that Item c) Freeway Reservations Ayes Y K X West (Big Canyon) be initiated for public hear - Noes X ing, which MOTION CARRIED. Abstain X M on X Motion was made to reconsider the prior action Ay X X X taken on the CALTRANS West parcel, which MOTION Noes X1 1 14 CARRIED. Motion Y Motion was made to initiate a public hearing Ayes Y U X Y for all items listed in General Plan Amendment Noes X X 81 -2, which would include the completion of the environmental documentation, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion Motion was made to continue the remainder of All Ayes X X X the items on the Agenda to the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 18, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. 0 There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -13-