Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/1994COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: MINUTES M August 4 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Present * All Commissioners were ,present. s s s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney s x x Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jay Garcia, Senior Planner Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x : x Minutes of July 21. 1994 Minutes of 7/21/' Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the July 21, 1994, Ayes Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain s s e Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. x x : Posting of the Benda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 29, 1994, in front of City Hall. x : x M 4 4 AO`9�f�Of'f��`� ars�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES I RO CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request for Director Hewicker stated that Item No. 3, General Plan Continue Amendment No. 87 -1(B) and Amendment No. 807, regarding the Noise Element of the General Plan, was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 1994. Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 3517 and Traffic Study No. 99, regarding a Taco Bell take -out restaurant, property located at 1400 West Coast Highway, was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1994. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Item 3 to the August All Ayes 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting, and to continue Item No. 6 to the September 8, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. k # # Use Permit No. 3538 Hearing) (Public Item No.. Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing UP3538 commercial /residential structure on property located in the RSC -R District which is nonconforming with regards to the commercial Approved and residential off - street parking requirement, and the rear yard setback requirement. The proposal involves expansion of the residential floor area and an alteration of the existing commercial floor area that will not increase the square footage of the commercial use of the structure. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning so as to allow additional residential floor area without increasing the number of rooms within the dwelling. LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 11, Section Four, Balboa Island, located at 222 Marine Avenue, on the easterly side of Marine Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and Park Avenue, on Balboa Island. -2- I 4 Fl- L COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Awniq 4,19()4 OLL CALL INDEX ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANTS: John and Sheila Noyes, Balboa Island OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the subject application. Commissioner Adams stated that inasmuch as the doors to the commercial area from the commercial parking spaces at the rear of the building are directed to only one of the commercial operations that an employee of the other commercial store would be required to walk around to the outside of the building and come in through the front, and that defeats having both commercial spaces at the rear of the building. The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. John Noyes, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Noyes replied that he did not intend to move his existing business on Marine Avenue to the subject site; however, the applicants intend to reside on the second floor of the subject building. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3538 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large -3- I COMMISSIONERS �dC "9�AOf'f�o�dfo�'O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 3. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the net overall parking requirement will be not be increased by the. proposed expansion of the existing residential use. 5. That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the existing commercial use will not be increased. 6. That the proposed modification to the Zoning Code is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, given that the proposed additions will not increase the number of habitable rooms and will not increase the existing encroachments into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3538 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 10 -4 L COMMISSIONERS O�G�''PnC1��0�„�9�'Zt. I+iTV 11T. NTH` {ITp(li?T RFAf!N MINUTES Aiicnjt,[ 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the maximum floor area of the subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 3,180 sq.ft. (1.41 FAR) as proposed, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 3. That the maximum floor area of the residential portion shall be limited to a maximum of 1,350 sq.ft. (0.60 FAR) not including the residential parking with a maximum of 180 sq.ft. (0.08 FAR) and the maximum floor area of the commercial portion shall be limited to a maximum of 1,650 sq.ft. (0.733 FAR), which includes the covered parking (340 sq.ft.) as currently exists, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 4. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the employees of the commercial use at all times the commercial space is open for business. The garage doors shall remain open during regular business hours. 5. That a sign shall be located on the rear of the building, stating that the garage doors to the commercial parking spaces shall remain open during regular business hours. Said sign shall also provide the telephone number of the City's Code Enforcement personnel so that the public may contact the City if the garage doors are closed during regular business hours. 6. That one independently accessible parking space shall be provided and available for vehicular storage for the residential unit on the property at all times. 7. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a -5- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 9. That the existing gas meter shall be relocated so as not to block access to the designated parking spaces, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 12. 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. 13. That the 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. No construction storage or delivery of materials shall be stored within the Marine Avenue right -of -way. 14. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this -6- ��AOar��o�'J.�od ds o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 1994 ROLL CALL , INDEX Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 16. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A General Plan Amendment No 94 -1 (D) (Continued Public Item No.2 Hearing) GPA 94 -1D Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so (Res.1361 as to reflect land use changes proposed as part of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LCP 33 (Res 1362 A sot AND (Res 1363 B Local Coastal Progmm Amendment No 33 (Continued Public Approved Hearing) Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to reflect land use changes proposed as part of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. AND C. Amendment No 802 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend Districting Map No. 11 so as to redesignate the area within the proposed boundaries of the Central Balboa Specif- ic Area Plan from the RSC -R, RSC -R -Z, MFR, R -2, R -1, and U Districts to the SP -8 District, and to amend the Zoning Ordinance text to add Chapter 20.65: Spec Plan District (Central Balboa). WYfIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 10 -7- 4 COMMISSIONERS V9�AOf'l��O`� n�'O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aatgust 1, 1994 RO CALL INDEX LOCATION: 300 to 800 blocks of East Balboa Boulevard, 500 to 800 blocks of East Bay Avenue and East Ocean Front; 100 to 300 blocks of Palm Street, Washington Street, and Main Street; east side of the 200 to 300 blocks of Adams Street; and west side of the 100 to 300 blocks of A Street. ZONES: RSC -R, RSC -R -Z, MFR, R -2, R -1, and U APPLICANT: The City of Newport Beach Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, stated that at the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting the Commission requested additional information regarding land use and zoning regulations concerning the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. The staff report contains information, analysis, and zoning of Block B (501, 503 and 505 East Bay Avenue), Block J (204, 206, and 208 Adams Street), Block S (400 block of East Balboa Boulevard). The blocks were proposed to change from current commercial designation to residential. Mr. Alford addressed the SP -8 (R -2) District revisions whereby he indicated that the requirement for screening refuse storage areas was removed, and the court requirement for habitable rooms and outdoor living space was replaced by the current open space requirement for the R -2 District. In reference to Main Street trees, Mr. Alford stated that the language in the specific area plan was modified to state that the intent is not to remove the existing trees unless the removal would be warranted by concerns of public safety. Mr. Alford addressed the Balboa Pier parking lot, and he stated that language was added in the specific area plan that requires a minimum 6 foot landscaped buffer to provide a buffer area between the parking lot and the adjoining residential areas, and language was added that there would not be a net loss of trees i -8- 4 COMMISSIONERS 9f�of �'PO �rL-75.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX dispersed throughout the parking lot. In reference to the public improvements section of the specific area plan, Mr. Alford stated that language was added to clarify that there would be opportunities in the future for public input and that final authority and approval of the plans would be by the City Council. Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the representative of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association expressed concerns at the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting regarding the long -term traffic improvements in the area and the potential for traffic unanticipated by the current studies. Subsequently, the following language was added to the Intent and Purpose Section [Section 20.65.015(B)] of the specific area plan: It is also the intent of the City to provide for the enhancements to the commercial district as articulated in the above goal statements, while recognizing the long -term interest of surrounding residents related to traffic and circulation service in the area This may require the City to further study and implement additional traffic mitigation measures in the future. She explained that the language articulates the typical procedure of the City, i.e. if the City would experience new or unanticipated traffic or other problems that the issue would come back to the City Council for additional discussion and perhaps the alteration of prior plans. The continued public hearing was opened, and Mr. Jim Petrilli, 2501 Bamboo Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Petrilli referred to his comments during the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the residents of the 500 block of East Ocean Front. The residents requested that a height increase be allowed on their 24 foot base height limit structures as a compromise to adding the proposed 1.09 parking spaces in the Balboa Pier parking lot inasmuch as the additional traffic would have a negative impact on their residences. Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the petition that Mr. Petrilli submitted to the Planning Commission from the residents, and in response to his questions regarding the property owners, Mr. Petrilli replied that the five property owners would accept a height increase as a compromise to the traffic increase in the parking lot. . -9 OA X09O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aiimict ROLL CALL INDEX He further replied that the residents understand that the structures would not be allowed additional square footage. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams regarding the proposed landscaping in the parking lot, Mr. Petrilli concurred with the revisions in the Balboa Pier parking lot landscape plan. Ms. Virginia Herberts, 2290 Channel Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. She asked if the proposed 109 parking spaces could be added without changing the circulation plan to exit on to Washington Street. Mr. Alford stated that if there is not a change in the circulation system that it may not be possible to develop the entire 109 parking spaces. Mrs. Herberts stated that the Balboa residents and merchants are concerned that if the circulation system would be changed that it would be necessary to install a traffic signal at Washington Street, and she wanted to be assured that there would be a public hearing for the residents to express their views regarding the traffic signal. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, explained that any significant reworking of the number of parking spaces in the Balboa Pier parking lot would be a significant capital project, and the staff would meet with representatives of the Balboa area early in the design process, and large capital projects require funding approval by the City Council. Therefore, the residents would have two levels of public comment that would be available to the residents prior to project completion. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Edmonton replied that the parking lot could be increased a significant number of parking spaces without installing the traffic light at Washington Street. In response. to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Edmonston stated that the traffic signal at Washington Street was driven by input from the community inasmuch as the residents wanted to significantly reduce the traffic on Main Street and make the street a more 'pedestrian- oriented' street, and as a result the traffic was diverted to Washington Street. Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission does not determine if there would be a traffic signal at any location. The City Council has a traffic signal funding policy and a priority which it establishes and modifies -10- COMMISSIONERS ' UP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A- 100A ROL CALL MEX each year depending upon the money that is available for that purpose. The City Council establishes a priority list of where traffic signals are going to be constructed during the next one, two, or three fiscal years. Mr. Hewicker addressed the number of public meetings that staff and City Council have with interested residents to review the design and schemes for modifying circulation and increased capacity in parking lots. Mr. Hewicker further replied that the Planning Commission will not be approving a traffic signal, a circulation plan, or a design of the enlargement of the parking lot in the specific area plan. The specific area plan proposes that the Balboa parking lot will be increased to accommodate an additional number of automobiles, and if the number reaches a point where it could warrant a change in the circulation system then it would trigger the need for a traffic signal. Commissioner Adams suggested that the third paragraph in Section 20.65.090 be modified to state That the final approval of plans, including any plans that propose a significant change in the circulation of the parking lot and /or require a new traffic signal at Washington Street shall be made by the City Council Commissioner Adams stated that the amendment would guarantee that there would be public hearings involved with the decision. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mrs. Herberts replied that she would prefer if Section 20.65.090 A.(7) Washington Street Traffic Signal would be eliminated from the specific area plan; she concurred with Section 20.65.025 C. (e) regarding the public parking facilities and landscaping; and it would be helpful if Section 20.65.090 would be modified as suggested by Commissioner Adams. Commissioner Gifford and Mr. Edmonston addressed the numerous factors to consider regarding the design of the parking lot and circulation plan: eliminate the metered parking lot in front of the Rendezvous Condominiums; incorporate landscaping close to the condominiums; add landscaping and create egress and ingress aisle ways to Main Street; narrow the roadway area between the -11- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDFX metered lot and the main lot; move parking away from the residences; and move the busses away from residential uses. In response to questions posed by Chairman Glover, Mr. Edmonston replied that approximately 600 parking spaces currently exist in the parking lot, and the traffic consultant advised that an additional 109 parking spaces could be added to the parking lot. Mr. Edmonton further replied that automobile traffic on Washington Street is used infrequently because it is difficult for an automobile to enter Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Edmonton further explained that the Washington Street traffic signal was included in a plan because of the desire to change circulation on Main Street; however, if that would cease to be a goal then the traffic light would not be needed and the people would accept the level of traffic on Main Street. Mr. Alford stated that the public improvement component lists a number of projects that may be necessary as a result of the various objectives of the specific area plan, and it was determined there may be a possibility of a traffic light at Washington Street. Since there was concern of whether the traffic light was needed the language in the specific area plan states that the signal would only be required if it was needed to revise the circulation plan. If it is concluded that a traffic signal is not needed then it would not be included in the final capital improvement plan for the area_ In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Alford stated that to eliminate the traffic signal at Main Street and adding a signal at Washington Street is a possibility. The Committee did not put final approval on any circulation plan inasmuch as they recognized that there could be changes in the future. Commissioner Adams suggested that the language in the circulation plan should be flexible enough so when the design are completed to implement the goals there would be flexibility, including changing the signalization. He suggested that Section 20.65.090 A. (7) regarding the Washington Street traffic signal be eliminated from the specific area plan. If the language is . -12- 4 �� �Yp0 �� �'t,11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aligust 4, 1994 R CALL INDEX eliminated it would not preclude consideration of the signal in an over -all circulation plan. Mr. Chan Lefebvre, 2112 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with Commissioner Adams' aforementioned comments. The plan that was adopted with 109 parking spaces was proposed several years ago. The Balboa residents and merchants subsequently have come to an agreement that they do not want a third traffic signal at Washington Street. They understand that traffic will continue to come out on Main Street from the parking lot, and they want to have as many automobiles as are feasible in the Balboa Pier parking lot while maintaining substantial landscaping. The parking lot and the circulation plan cannot precisely be designed in the proposed specific area plan. The design should be considered at subsequent meetings with additional traffic studies, and additional parking lot designs. In response to questions posed by Chairman Glover, Mr. Lefebvre replied that reference to the 109 parking spaces should be eliminated, and the language that the parking lot exit on Washington Street and the reference to the third traffic signal should be eliminated from the specific area plan. He approved of the language with regard to public meetings and final approval by the City Council. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Lefebvre agreed to language stating no net increase in the number of traffic signals. Commissioner Gifford stated that it was her impression that the residents are concerned with the synchronization of the traffic lights and not the number of traffic lights wherein Mr. Lefebvre added if the residents could be made comfortable that the third traffic signal would not be a problem. Ms. Elaine Linboff, 1760 East Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Linhoff requested that reference to the Washington Street traffic signal be eliminated from the specific area plan. She referenced Section 20.65.025 2.(b) Circulation and Parking, stating Minimizing traffic on Main Street while maintaining adequate access to businesses and sendces. whereby she suggested that the language be modified if Main -13- COMMISSIONERS f'%Tlr'V nV t►rTi IiTOnUrr TUP-A! M MINUTES \f,-r vim_ W \Q• \ vaa a va a.ar .. a va�a aia+aav�� 1 August 4,1994 RO CALL INDEX Street would remain as an exit to the parking lot. Mr. Edmonton concurred. Commissioner Adams stated that the language could be amended to state Consider minimizing traffic on Main Street... inasmuch as the language could become too specific and a new idea could come up in the future during the design process. Ms. Linhoff concurred with Commissioner Adams' recommendation. Mr. Richard Vogel, 408 Westminster, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the suggestions made by Commissioner Adams and Mr. Hewicker regarding the traffic signals wherein he said that a third traffic signal would cause gridlock in the three blocks. He agreed to additional parking spaces, but not at the cost of a third traffic signal. He said that pedestrian attempting to cross Balboa Boulevard would not be a problem if the Main Street traffic signal would sequence faster. Mr. Tom Hyams, President of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hyams stated that if three traffic signals were synchronized and in turn there would be a change in circulation of the Balboa Pier parking lot then the residents would gain the improvements of Main Street as a pedestrian- oriented promenade which was the original goal. Mr. Hyams stated that it would be an option to remove the traffic signal at Main Street, and maintaining two traffic signals. Mr. Hyams addressed the issue of the number of parking spaces in the Balboa Pier parking lot, and he emphasized that the Association is opposed to any more placement of any more asphalt and any more permanent structures on the beach for any reason, and they are opposed to less landscaping than currently exists in the parking lot. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Hyams discussed the feasibility of synchronization of traffic lights. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Hyams stated that the specific area plan committee was initially interested in the consolidation of the Balboa commercial area into a viable commercial community. -14- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aimiq 41 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Mary Kosger, 502 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. She addressed her concerns regarding the noise, pollution, busses, and overnight motor homes that exist in front of their homes. Ms. Kosger expressed a concern that an emergency exit at Adams Street was eliminated and two parking spaces were added to the parking lot. She said that architects determined that if the height limit would be increased on the five residential structures in the 500 block on East Ocean Front that it would address their concerns regarding the noise and pollution in the parking lot. Ms. Kosger stated that the lot sizes are too small to provide two required parking spaces for each unit, and she requested that the property owners be allowed to use the Balboa Pier parking lot. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Edmonton replied that the Marine Department permits tour busses in the Balboa Pier parking lot to remove the vehicles from the streets. In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Edmonston explained that the Marine . Department operates the parking lot. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission does not become involved with the design of a City Municipal Parking Lot, but there will be meetings concerning the parking lot and the specific area plan could include a suggestion that the bus parking be moved away from the residential area. Mr. Edmonston stated that there are no designated parking spaces for busses, and he recommended that no designated areas be assigned to the parking lot because it is possible that the designated area could be left empty and the benefit of the parking lot could be lost. Commissioner Gifford, Commissioner DiSano, and Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, discussed the feasibility of including the noise of vehicle motors left running in the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Spence Henry, property owner of 411 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Spence pointed out that the property is listed as a commercial property in the staff report by the Tax Assessor's Office; however, it is being used as a residence by his son who is a licensed electrical contractor. Mr. Henry supported the R -2 zoning that is proposed for the 400 block of East Balboa Boulevard. In response to questions posed by Mr. -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 1, 1994 R CALL INDEX Henry regarding the Residential- Professional (RP) District, Mr. Alford explained that the zoning would be a compromise for the property owners who had a desire to continue a commercial use in a predominant residential block. The commercial development would be limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25 and limited to the front portion of the ground floor of the property, and the commercial uses would be limited to offices and personal services. The RP zoning would allow two residential units on the property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Edwards suggested that the Planning Commission consider the following issues to be included in the specific area plan: bus parking away from residential use; traffic signals; the aforementioned amendment to Section 20.65.090; and the elimination of the emergency exit and adding two parking spaces at Adams Street. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Commissioner Edwards replied that the specific area plan should consider restoring the emergency exit at Adams Street. Mr. Edmonston stated that it may have been determined several years ago that the emergency exit was no longer necessary. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding the request to increase the height of five structures on East Ocean Front, Mr. Alford stated that it would be very unlikely that there would be an increase in the parking adjacent to the 500 block on East Ocean Front, and therefore would not impact the residents. The height limits in the Zoning Code have provisions stating that a height increase could be requested on a case by case basis, and the height could be increased to an average height of 28 foot maximum through the use permit process. Mr. Alford stated that the adjacent commercial district has the potential for a significant increased height, and a minor increase in height of the five structures would not impact the area. Mr. Hewicker stated that the concerns regarding the noise and pollution from the • -16- COMMISSIONERS ���rL�PnCInO+P. 992 /�iTV ^I Q% NTi X1TiDn1?T i2191 A f!H MINUTES W 4, 1994 RO CALL INDEX busses could be addressed in the redesign of the parking lot The area where the increase in the number of parldng stalls in the parking lot would occur is not in front of the five structures. The property owners have the ability to go to the 28 foot height limit, 33 foot ridge, subject to a use permit. He said that there are many residential areas in the City that are adjacent to commercial areas, and the issue could set a precedent. Motion Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1 D (Resolution No. 1361), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 33 (Resolution No. 1362), and Amendment No. 802 (Resolution No. 1363), and to add language to the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan as follows: address standing busses near residences in the Balboa Pier parking lot; that Section 20.65.090 A.(7) Washington Street Traffic Signal be eliminated; that Section 20.65.090 (third paragraph) be modified to state That final approval of plans including but not limited to the selection of streetscape improvements, significant changes to the Balboa Pier parking lot, and changes to the signalization on Balboa Boulevard shall be made by the City Council Commissioner Adams suggested that the rezoning remain as proposed in the specific area plan. He did not support a height increase for the five structures on East Ocean Front. Add to Section 20.65.015(B) the statement that was previously made by Ms. Temple during the public hearing. Commissioner Edwards requested the maker of the motion to consider the reinstitution of the emergency exit at Adams Street. Commissioner Adams stated that the emergency exit is an operational issue that is not appropriate for the specific area plan. In response to questions posed by Commissioner DiSano with respect to amended Section 20.65.090, Commissioner Adams explained that the proposed language states that the City Council would have to approve any changes to the signalization on Balboa Boulevard, and the amendment gives an opportunity for reasonable change. Public input would be guaranteed and public discussion on the traffic signals would be required. -17- I COMMISSIONERS � 1��9�01"l�O% CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO L CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion. He said that it is important to maintain maximum flexibility. The residents did not state that they did not want three traffic signals, but that they wanted traffic signals that worked. He said that he may have supported a minor increase in the height limit for the five structures, until the issue was disclosed that there would not be an increase in parking in the area where the five residences exist. In response to a question. posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Commissioner Adams stated that the Residential- Professional (RP) District is not included in the motion. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that there were residents that wanted the ability to have the commercial zone, and to maintain the flexibility of allowing R -2 units. Commissioner Ridgeway requested that the maker of the motion amend the motion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Alford replied that a professional office use would be permitted in the RP District. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment Motion * No. 94 -1 D (Resolution No. 1361), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 33 (Resolution No. 1362), and Amendment No. 802 (Resolution No. 1363). The substitute motion was made identical to the original motion with the exception that it would include the Residential- Professional (RP) District as recommended by staff. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the rezoning would address the spot zoning issue. Commissioner DiSano addressed the time and effort that the residents and staff put in regarding the spec area plan. He supported the substitute motion on the basis of the RP District inasmuch as it addresses the spot zoning issue, and it speaks to the issue of what is truly a specific area plan. Commissioner DiSano determined that the vital organ of the City of Newport Beach and what the City of Newport Beach is, is Balboa and that is what put Newport Beach here. He expressed a desire that the City Council -18- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX would find a vehicle to not just look at the language and say that it is great, but to find a vehicle to fund the specific area plan. Chairman Glover supported the substitute motion based on the RP District. Commissioner Gifford supported the substitute motion. She supported the issue of busses, and the amended language in Section 20.65.090 considers the concerns of the residents. The issue of the height increase could be addressed through the use permit process if the parking lot would become a problem. She acknowledged the effort that staff put into the specific area plan. Ms. Temple requested a clarification of the substitute motion. She asked if the Residential- Professional (RP) District would apply to the odd side of the 400 block of East Balboa Boulevard and the odd side of the 500 block of East Bay Avenue. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the substitute motion includes the property owners that testified during the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting and who objected to the zoning. Ms. Temple replied that one of the three property owners on East Bay Avenue objected to the residential zoning. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would include that in the zoning. Ms. Temple asked if the substitute motion included 204, 206, and 208 Adams Street. The properties include relatively new duplexes and the Planning Commission received no testimony objecting to the R -2 District. Commissioner Pomeroy replied that he would consider those properties excluded from the RP District. In response to questions. posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding a property owner who owns property directly across the street from Newport Landing indicated during the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting that he wanted to retain commercial zoning, Ms. Temple replied that the lots include a residential property, a residential property that is being used for commercial use, and an apartment project. She said that there is a concern about the three properties in. the RSC District or the exclusive commercial district, and there would be less concern with -19- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX the RP District. She indicated that the use that is currently on the property is an existing use and would be allowed to remain. All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve the substitute motion as stated. SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED. s.s A. General Plan Amendment No 87 -1(�B (Continued Public Item xo.3 Hearin GPA 87 -1B Request to amend the Noise Element of the General Plan so as to conduct a comprehensive update of technical and policy A807 information necessary to reflect the changes in community noise environment and noise - related issues which have occurred since its Cont 'd to a /la / g4 original adoption. . AND B Amendment No 807 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend Sections 20.01.070 (C), 20.01.070 (F), 20.10.035, 20.10.045, and 20.70.060 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to revise current noise control regulations to be consistent with those contained in the proposed Community Noise and Vibration Control Ordinance. The proposed amendment also requests to amend the Municipal Code so as to add Chapter 10.26: Community Noise and Vibration Control and to revise Sections of Chapters 6.04, 10.28, and 1032 to maintain consistency in community noise control regulations. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 3 regarding the Noise Element of the General Plan be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 1994. . -20- COMMISSIONERS F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDEX Motion All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 3 to the August 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:37 p.m. General Plan Amendment 94 -2 (Continued Discussion) Item No. 4 GPA 94 -2 Request to initiate an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: Initiated D. Caltrans West: Possible modifications to the Land Use Element and Recreation and Open Space Element that would specifically authorize the transfer. of 152 dwelling units from the site to any property in the City, grant park credits to the owner of the parcel to which the units are transferred, and authorizing the transfer of development rights based upon a traffic equivalency to any zoning district subject to the review and approval of the City Council. The request includes an amendment of the Recreation and Open Space Element to change the designation of Caltrans West from a view park to a community park; and an amendment of the Land Use Element to designate the site as 'Recreational and Environmental Open Space" subject to development rights transfer. Commissioner Edwards requested that staff address the letter from Caltrans to the Planning Commission dated August 3, 1994. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the letter states that Caltrans objects to the initiation of General Plan Amendment No. . -21- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August ROL CALL INDEX 94 -2; however, she suggested that the Planning Commission proceed with the request to initiate inasmuch as staff would have additional time to discuss with Caltrans the areas that they may be opposing. In response to comments by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the aforementioned letter, Ms. Clauson explained that there has been a 10 year period of time that the designation has remained in place and the State Department of Transportation has not exercised the entitlement. Staff has met with members of Caltrans on a potential solution for the future with respect to what to do with the property inasmuch as there have been conflicting interests between citizens, open space, and development. Commissioner Pomeroy determined that the letter states that Caltrans requested the Planning Commission defer the initiation so Caltrans could enter into discussions with the City that would lead to a mutually acceptable conclusion. .i.on * Motion was made and voted on to open the discussion item to a All ayes public hearing. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ralph Neal, Deputy District Director for Right of Way for State Department of Transportation, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that Caltrans has attempted for the past 10 years to work closely with the City to be certain that development would be fair to Caltrans and would be right and proper for the City and its residents. He explained that Caltrans has concerns that they were not notified of the General Plan Amendments that the Planning Commission previously considered regarding the property. He requested that instead of going through the formal process that Caltrans be given the opportunity to meet with the City to discuss the property. The Planning Commission discussed with Mr. Neal the reasons why Caltrans has a desire to meet with all of the interested parties prior to the initiation of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Neal indicated that a four month period would be an adequate time to proceed with the initiation. . -22- L�'�9�p� p�•y S�O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH nib R CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway and Ms. Clauson discussed the legal issue to consider the transfer of development rights. The Planning Commission and staff discussed the feasibility of continuing the initiation for four months or to take action on the initiation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Neal stated that there has been communication between the City and Caltrans during the past few years, and in particular of why they ought not to develop the property inasmuch as the City does not want the access to be from Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Mr. Neal stated that progress has been made with the City regarding the development of the property, and it was his opinion that the desires of the two parties are not that different. He said that Caltrans wants to receive the full value of the property, and if they can do that and at the same time allow the . City to develop the property as a park then everyone would win. He said the issue could be resolved in reasonable negotiations. Mr. Neal stated that he received a revised document from the City concerning the property during the past week. Ms. Louise Greely, 16 Swift Court, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the initiation of the General Plan Amendment. She said that West Newport does not have a playground or park from Newport Boulevard to the Santa Ana River on the inland side of West Coast Highway. There has been a growing support of City acquisition of Caltrans West /Sunset Ridge for an environmental park, recreation, and open space uses. Ms. Greely said that 326 out of 329 residents of Newport Crest voted in support of the park /playground, and she listed 16 homeowner associations in support of the acquisition. It would be difficult to consider acquisition of the property at the price that has been mentioned which is in the neighborhood of $8 million since there is no access to the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Greely explained that parking would be provided in a parking lot that is located across Superior Avenue from the park until an arrangement was made -23 COMMISSIONERS \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL IlMEX with West Newport Oil. Pedestrian access would be provided by a crosswalk across Superior Avenue. Ms. Temple responded to a question posed by the Planning Commission, and stated that the City owns the Superior Avenue metered parking lot. Ms. Clauson stated that the aforementioned comments would be considered and discussed when the Amendment comes back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mike Johnson, a long time resident of Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the conceptual map of the property on display indicating areas that could be used for activity and passive parks. He explained that there is a demand for a recreation area for the youth and adults in West Newport. He concluded that there is not much open space available in West Newport, and it was not until the homeowner associations expressed support for the park that Caltrans considered negotiation of the property. He said that the traffic on West Coast Highway would not allow 152 dwelling units on the property. Mr. Gary Seaton, representing the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that on the basis that the City and Caltrans are so far apart in their negotiations that the residents have requested that the Amendment be initiated. Mr. Richard Deemer, 2812 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the initiation. He determined that the issue should be considered by the City Council if the Planning Commission believes that it makes good planning sense. He said that West Newport is in need of additional active and passive recreation. Mr. Bill Jennings, 280 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the initiation. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 41 100A RO CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by the Planning Commission, Ms. Clauson discussed the processing of the General Plan Amendment, development rights, and access to the site. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that a park is appropriate for the property. He recommended that the parties make the best deal possible, and not delay the process further. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the testimony made a very compelling case for a park; however, he stated that he has a certain belief regarding property rights and a consideration to protect the residents of the City. He said that the pressure has been built by the residents, and Caltrans has indicated that in four months the issue could possibly be resolved. Motion Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 94 -2. Commissioner Gifford supported the motion. The Planning Commission has turned down previous requests; however, the proposed amendment has the potential to preserve the property rights of the owner and that was evidenced by the letter from Caltrans. She said a way to explore the issue is with sufficient staff resources devoted to researching the information, and that would be done through the initiation process. Chairman Glover supported the motion. She said that there has been community input into the initiation, and the best context is in an official context. Commissioner Ridgeway supported the park but not the motion inasmuch as he had a fear that the issue has a financial implication to the City. Commissioner Edwards expressed support of the park. Commissioner Adams concurred with Commissioner Gifford's comments. . -25- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy supported the park. He said his concern is which is the most effective way to get accomplished what needs to be accomplished to the least cost to the City in the shortest period of time, and initiating the General Plan Amendment is that solution at this time. Ayes - * * Motion was voted on to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 94- Noes * * 2. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 808 (Discussion) Item No.s Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach A808 Municipal Code so as to add regulations related to the collection and loading of recyclable materials in new development projects. Set for ph 8/18/9 . James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the initiation of the Amendment would comply with the State Law that requires the City to adopt a regulation exempting the City from the requirements of providing recycling facilities in all residential developments of five or more living units, and all commercial and industrial developments. The City provides a system whereby trash is collected and taken to a center and sorted. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the State Law was enacted to require Citys to put into their zoning to make developers of large commercial and residential projects set aside space in their development for recycling. The City's collection program does not separate recycling inasmuch as it goes to one facility, and the facility does the separation. The State Law is required, and the Ordinance would recognize the waste processing center and would exempt the developments from providing the recycling area so long as the current system stays in place. Motion Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 808 for All Ayes public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. . -26- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 20 CALL INDEX a s : A. Use Permit No. 3517 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to permit the establishment of a 24 hour Taco Bell drive - UP3517 through, take -out restaurant facility, with indoor and outdoor ancillary seating, on property located in the RSC -H District. The TS 99 proposal also includes: a request to waive a portion of the Cont'd to required off - street parking spaces; a modification to the Sign Code 9/8/94 so as to allow two free standing pole or ground signs where the Sign Code permits only one free standing sign per building site; and an exception to the Sign Code so as to allow a restaurant logo on the special purpose directional signs, whereas the Sign Code prohibits such logos on directional signs; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND . B. Traffic Study No. 99 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed 24 hour Taco Bell drive- through and take -out restaurant facility. LOCATION: Lots 48 through 53 and a portion of Lot 54, Tract No. 1210, located at 1400 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from the Balboa Bay Club. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Taco Bell Corp., Irvine OWNERS: Levon and Zarouhi Gugasian, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, reported that the applicant requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1994, to allow additional time to further . -27- COMMISSIONERS OG��Off�O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES M ROM CALL INDEX analyze slope conditions, incorporate staff recommendations and to revise the site and floor plans. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3517 All Ayes and Traffic Study No. 99 to the September 8, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. r s s ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add ' 1 Busines Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner DiSano All Ayes from the August 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, and oisano Commissioner Gifford was excused from the September 8, 1994 Gifford excused Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. r r i rADJOURNMENT. 10:40 Adjourn p.m. r r r TOD RIDGEWAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . -28- M