Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/1970CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Minutes of: Regular Meeting of Planning Commission Date: July 16., 1970 Timer 8:00 P..M. Place: Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: x x x x x x Commissioners Absent: x EX-OFFICIQ MEMBERS Laurence Wilson, Planning Director Dennis O'Neil, Asst. City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Asst. Planning Director James E. Nuzum, Senior Planner William.R. Foley, Assistant Planner Helen Herrmann On motion of Commissioner Dosh, seconded by Commissioner Glass, and carried., the- minutes of July 2,1970 were approved. • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Prior to discussion of the following item, Commissioners Brown and Martin stepped down from the dais; Commissioner Brown because of his connection with the University of Californ a and Commissioner Martin because he is employed by the McDonnell - Douglas Corporation. Item 1. ZONE Request to prezone unincorporated territory AGE adjoining the City of Newport,.Beach for the AMENDMENT purpose of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of sub- NT. 63- sequent annexation to the City. Specific REMOVED consideration will be given to the establish - FROM ment of.a P -C (Planned Community) District to FDA provide for development of approximately 50 acres of land located northeast of the inter- section of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive for commercial offices, a hotel and related commercial facilities. Location: Lot 11 of Tract 5902 located at the northeast corner of the inter section of MacArthur Boulevard an Campus Drive. Zone: P -C (Orange County) Page 1. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a Julv 16. 1970 COMMISSIONERS 4WD � N � Applicant: Azimuth Equities, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: McDonnell - Douglas Corporation Santa Monica Planning Director Wilson advised the Commis- sion that the escrow for the acquisition of this property by Azimuth Equities, Inc., had been terminated the previous day and that this company was no longer interested in this pre - zone application. However, Mc- Donnell - Douglas Corporation, the owner of the property, also signed the application and had not been heard from as to their position on this matter. Planning Director Wilson recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take statements from interested persons and then continue the application. Mr. James E. Taylor, General Planning Adminis- trator for the Irvine Company, addressed the • Commission and stated that they had made their position clear on this application. Since the Orange County Planning Commission has not acted on a similar application and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach and the Local Agency Formation Commission have not acted on the proposed annexation,.the Irvine Company asked that the matter be continued. Commissioner Dosh moved that due to the un- Motion x certainty regarding this application, that it Second be removed from the agenda until further notic Ayes x x x from the parties involved. Abstain x x Commissioners Brown and Martin returned to the dais. Item 2, ZONE Request to amend a portion of District Maps CHANGE No. 50 and 52 fron an R -3 -B District to an UMENT R -3 District. NO. 26 Location: Portion of Block 96, Irvine's CONTINUED Subdivision located on the east side of Marguerite Avenue between UJW L Al )ST 66 San Joaquin Hills Road and Pacific View Drive. Zone: R -3 -B Page 2. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 16,.1970 Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant. Planning Director Wilson stated that while the application before the Commission was a reques for a change in zone from R -3 -13 to R -3, The Irvine Company had filed a drawing showing a proposed specific plan the intended use of the specific plan would be amendment to the zoning legally published, and ning Commission agenda of development as to property and that this filed in the form of an ordinance, to be possibly be on the Plan August 6, 1970. The Commission discussed the advisability of changing the zone to R -3 prior to the filing . of this specific plan. Mr. James E. Taylor of the Irvine Company addressed the Commission and stated that after • the last Planning Commission meeting, the Irvi Company had met with the Planning Department staff, as well as the City Attorney, to ascer- tain the best way to present this to the Com- mission. Upon being questioned as to why this zone change was necessary prior to the filing of the specific plan, Mr. Taylor stated that the prime concern was the parking; under R -3 -B two covered parking spaces are required wherea in R -3, only one covered space is required and the other space may be uncovered: He stated further that they would like an indication fro the City that the R -3 zoning is satisfactory before going ahead with the working drawings. Item 3. Chairman Jakosky stated he felt a-zone change which would permit increased density, without being tied to a specific plan, was not desirab e. COMMISSIONERS After further discussion, the application was I Motion x continued until August 6, 1970 in order that Second the applicant could file a specific plan in All Aye connection with this zone change. ET Proposed street name change for that portion o 21st Street located between Irvine Avenue and CHANGE Tustin Avenue in the West Back Bay area. CONTINUED Planning Director Wilson stated that a meeting N11�� AUGUST 6 Page 3. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .11J1v ls_ 107n COMMISSIONERS 1 .f 4 NS of the property owners on 21st.Street had been held and that of the 19 property owners, 14 were present and 3 submitted written opinions. Fourteen of the residents felt that the street name should be changed to Holiday Road in spit of the fact that it would create a non- contigu us street. The second choice was "Monterey % the third "Fallen Leaf" and the fourth "Delmonico" Since there is a Monterey Street existing in Costa Mesa and various forms of "Fallen Leaf" in the county, these names were not deemed suitable. After discussion with the Coast Mes Planning Department the street name "Delmonico' appeared to be the most appropriate one and the Costa Mesa Planning Department stated that if that portion of 21st Street within the City of Newport Beach were renamed, they would recom mend to their Planning Commission that 21st Street in their City be changed accordingly. Mr. Richard Luckey of 406 - 21st Street who • had attended the meeting of the property owner was present and stated he was representing the property owners as Dr. Frizzelle, who had arranged the meeting, could not be present thi evening. Mr. Luckey stated further that, as mentioned, "Holiday Road" was the name pre- ferred by the majority and he did not know why the name "Delmonico" was being proposed as onl one person had suggested it; `the "second choice of the majority of the property owners was "Portofino Way ". Commissioner Martin stated that since the Motion x majority of the property, owners preferred the Second x name "Holiday Road ", he would move that the Ayes x x x name of that portion of 21st Street between Noes x x x Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue be- changed to "Holiday Road ". The motion resulted in a tie vote and therefore failed to carry. After further discussion, the matter was con- Motion x tinued until August 6th so that Mr. Luckey Second x could contact the property owners again and All Ayes the house numbering change was set over until October 1, 1970. • Page 4. ELI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .lulu 1F_ 1Q7n COMMISSIONERS 9 Item 4. VARIANCE Request to permit an observation area above the second floor level. NO. 989 REMOVED Location:. Lots 14 & 15, Block 25, Eastside FR —� Addition to Balboa Tract, located AGENDA at 1606 East Balboa - Boulevard, on UNTIL A the north side of East Balboa LATER Boulevard, between "H" Street and D/— E "I" Street. Zone: R -1 Applicant: Mrs. A. W. Colby, Pasadena Owner: Same as applicant: Planning Director Wilson read a letter from Jack D. Remington, architect, re.qu:esting that_ since the Planning.Commission has not complete its study concerning "height ", "observation • tower ", and "mezzanine. ", etc., that this vari- ance be postponed until the study is completed and placed on the agenda at that time. Chairman Jakosky moved that.this application Motion x be removed from the agenda until a later date. Second x All Ayes Mr. Lee Boggs who had requested an interpreta- tion regarding the definition of "story" and "mezzanine" on June 3, 1970 addressed the Commission and asked how soon it was anticipat d that the ordinance would be amended: The Com- mission informed him that they could not promi e immediate action nor a specific date in this matter; that he could file for a variance if he felt he could qualify under the Code. The other alternative is to inquire from time to time as to the status of the ordinance. Item 5. USE PERMI1 Request for waiver of the off- street parking requirements for a 91 seat restaurant and NO.1476 further, request to permit alcoholic beverages CONTINUED to be served within 200 feet of a residential district. UL AIN 20 Location: Portion of Lots 9, 10 and 11 of Block 12,.Balboa Tract, located at 100 Main Street, Balboa, on the northeasterly corner of Main Page 5. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Julv 16. 1970 COMMISSIONERS �5 \ot_- _. Street and Ocean Front Boulevard. Zone: C -1 Applicant:. Harry Alexon, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant Mr. Dennis Harwood, attorney, addressed the Commission and stated he recognized the concer of the staff regarding the parking problem, however the applicant feels that a restaurant is the only profitable use of the property, which is located in an area which is not as economically sound as other parts of the City. There is a municipal parking lot within 300 feet of the subject property; they would like to meet with the City Attorney in an attempt to work out a parking agreement and use valet parking. Planning Director Wilson explained the traffic pattern in the area'as some of the streets are one way streets. After a further discussion, the application wa continued until August 20, 1970 at the request Motion x of the applicant's attorney. Second x All Aye Item 6. i ZONE Request to prezone unincorporated territory CHANGE adjoining the City of Newport Beach for the MENDMENT purpose of determining::-the zoning- that vii -1 =1• apply to such property in the event-of:subse- 1Ni�2- quent annexation to the City. Specifi6 con - APPROVED sideration will be given'to the °establishment of a C -1 District to provide for-development of approximately 10.38 acres of land. Location: Lots 72 thru 81, Tract 706, locat d on the easterly side of Acacia Street between Orchard Drive and Palisades Road. Zone: C -1 and A -1 (Orange County) Applicant: Jack W. Mullan, Newport Beach • Owner: William J. Cagney, Los Angeles an Dial Construction, Newport Beach Planning Director Wilson outlined to the Com- mission the present land use of the property in question and stated that the staff felt Page 6. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a July 16. 1970 COMMISSIONERS S r�3N i that nonresidential uses were more appropriate in the area than residential uses due to the proximity to the airport. However, while the staff feels that the area currently zoned for commercial purposes should remain in that class- ification, they are of the opinion that the A -P (Administrative - Professional) Zone would be more appropriate for the balance of the property. 'Mr. Jack Mullen represented two of the principal owners of the property and stated that while Dial Construction was in agreement with the staff recommendation, Mr. Cagney was not. He is thinking of a neighborhood shopping complex on approximately 3 acres on the corner of Orchard Drive and the extension of Tustin Avenue and would prefer that the area recommended for A -P zoning be zoned C -N. The staff pointed out that retail businesses could be allowed by use permit in the_A -P Zone. It was pointed out that the prezoning would hot take effect until the property was annexed to the City of Newport Beach and that the property owners would like to know what zoning will be in effect if the annexation does take place. During the discussion regarding this prezoning, two of the Commissioners expressed an opinion that while this prezoning was not necessarily incorrect, a.larger area should be considered. After further discussion, Commissioner Brown Motion x moved that the northeasterly 366 feet of the Second x property covered in this application be prezonel Ayes x x x x to the C -1 -H District and that the remainder be Noes x prezoned to the A -P -H District. Abstain x On motion of Commissioner Martin, the staff was Motion x instructed to initiate the prezoning of the Second x balance of the property, namely Lots 82 thru 91 All Aye Tract 706 to coincide with.the prezoning recom- mended for approval this evening. Chairman Jakosky called a recess. The Commission reconvened at 10:15 P.M. • Page 7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MLI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 16, 1970 COMMISSIONERS 0 Item 7. ZONE. CH AN E G AMENDMENT Request to adopt a specific plan of development for City owned property under lease to the Balboa Bay Club, inc. The proposed plan of development provides for retention of existing 67 structures on the westerly portion of the DENIED property, construction of a new 96 unit apart- ment building having an overall height of approximately 182 feet on the easterly portion of the property,.construction of new clubhouse facilities having an overall height of not mor than 50 feet and removal of existing structure to create an open area approximately 300 feet in width extending from West Coast Highway to Newport Bay. Location: 1221 West Coast Highway on the south side of West Coast Highway, 1500 feet to 3500 feet west of Dover Drive. • Zone: R -4 Applicant: Balboa Bay Club, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: City of Newport Beach Planning Director Wilson presented the applica tion to the Commission and stated that the petitions and letters received from individual opposing this application had been supplied to the Planning Commission and he would not read them unless requested to do so. Mr. Daniel O'Farrell, Director of Real Estate Development for the Balboa Bay Club and the Wrather Corporation and Mr. Tom Black, archite t and consultant, were present at the meeting. Mr. O'Farrell stated they would like very much to have the City accept the specific plan of development as proposed and they hoped to pro- ceed in an orderly manner. The Commission questioned Mr. O'Farrell as to why the 182-foot building had been placed on the easterly edge • of the property and he replied that they are trying to maintain balance, help traffic a cir- culation and create an open area; also the buildings on the easterly side are the oldest on the property: Page 8. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • July 16, 1970 COMMISSIONERS kvoa ol�o+�.N z The Commission questioned Mr. Black as to whether or not he had made a "sun shadow study' in connection with this building and he replie that he had but did not.have the figures with him, however, he believed that at 12 o'clock the shadow would be approximately,100 feet long, mostly on the Bay Club property but that by 2 or 3 o'clock the shadow would extend into the Bayshores area about 200 to 300 feet. Mr. Black displayed.photographs of the adjacen area with the high rise building superimposed on the photographs. A model also was displaye first with the high rise building and then wit , the 50 foot structure which could be built on the site. He also had models of a 3 tower building 85 feet in height; 2 towers 120 -125 feet in height and 1 tower, 22 stories or 220 feet in height. He stated that after dis- cussions with the staff and study sessions wit the Council, it was decided on a compromise of 182 feet in height. There would be no elevate parking; most of the parking being below grade • Mr. O'Farrell stated that a building definitel will be built but they would prefer not to construct a "Chinese wall" type of building as the present Balboa Bay Club has been referred to. Mr. William O'Bryon of 2672 Circle Drive, a resident of Bayshores and Chairman of the Bayshores Community Association addressed the Commission in opposition both as a resident and in behalf of the 243 residential homes in the Bayshores area. He also submitted an addi tional petition of opposition from Bayshores residents living within 300 feet of the Balboa Bay Club site. Mr. O'Bryon stated that he had been a permanent resident of the Bayshores are for 20 years and while the City has come a long way, the character of Newport Beach and its resort image really has not changed. However, like it or not, change is upon us and it is up to us to shape and control that change. Allowing a structure twice as tall as any other structure adjacent to the Bay, and or City owned land, is not the way to start and • could be establishing a precedent. Bayshores has been established as a single family resi- dential community for some 25 years and block- ing the sun from the homes and patios would automatically depreciate the value of the property. He stated further that if the Balbo Page 9. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - July 16, 1970 COMMM ISSIONERS 1 Bay Club were not allowed to build the high= rise,.he did not believe they would build another "Chinese wall" at the east,end of the property; he believes they will not build anything without a bay view as, without a view, apartments would not be rentable to their clientele. Mr. Sam Barnes, a resident of.Bayshores, addressed the Commission and stated he is not satisfied with the "either /or" choice as he believes the zoning could be changed to a more restrictive zone. Mr. Kenneth Hartman of 2430 Bayshore Drive also spoke in oppositio . Mrs..Jos. Gallant, President of the Cliff Have Community Association and the following resi- dents of Cliff Haven and Newport Heights also spoke in opposition: Mr. Frank Eisendreft, 1300 Kings Road; Mr. Roland W. Landrigan, 535 E1 Modena, on the Board of Directors of • the Newport Heights Community Association and Mr. Kurt Herberts of 2949 Cliff Drive. Mr. James Taylor of the Irvine Company address d the Commission and stated they were not present to protest development of the property, howeve , they do have concern. They have received a great number of phone calls and they are in- terested in the protection of the environment. Mr. Taylor reiterated they are not opposed to development of the property, however, they fee adjacent property owners have an equal right and no development should infringe on their rights. The Commission had a lengthy discussion regard ing the various phases of this proposed develo - ment and the following motion was made by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously passed by the Commissioners present: Whereas, (1) the building proposed in Zone Motion x Change Amendment No. 267 by virtue of its Second x extreme height and proximity to an R -1 Zone All Aye does extreme violence to the rights of that adjacent R -1 Zone and (2) is apparently in- consistent with the view of the residents of Newport Beach as expressed in the recent election, in the Newport Tomorrow report and as expressed in public hearing before this Page 10. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . July 16, 1970 COMMISSIONERS a. Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that Zone Change No. 267 be denied. Commissioner Brown moved further that the reso Motion x lution be forwarded to the City Council, with Second x specific mention that this resolution repre- All Aye . sents the unanimous vote of all Commissioners present. After consideration of the above item, Chairma Jakosky stated he was sorry but due to the lateness of the hour (12:20 A.M.) he would recommend that the balance of the items be set over until August 6, 1970 and that the agenda on that date begin with Item No. 8. On motion of Commissioner Dosh, seconded by Commissioner_ Glass, and carried, the meeting was adjourned until August 6, 1970 at 8:00 P.M in the City Council Chambers. • 'Uon R..Adk n o , Secretary Planning Commission • Page 11.