Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/19797 Vl 7C fN • • Present Ixlxl Ix Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent * x Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. . Date: October:18, 1979 of Newport Beach EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS ,James Hewicker, Acting Director Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer Glenna Gipe, Secretary * * * Minutes.Written.By: Glenna Gipe * * * MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1979 and October 4, 1979 and of.the special Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 1979 was postponed to the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 1979. * * * Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Cokas from the regular Planning Commission meeting for this evening and from the regular Planning Commission meeting on November 8, 1979. * * * Motion was made to continue Agenda Item No. .1 to the regular Planning Commission meeting of Decem- ber 6, 1979 and to withdraw Agenda Item No. 6, as per the applicants' requests. * * * Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the re- maining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the acceptance of an En- vironmental Document. LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic Plaza, generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz -1- Item #1 PHASING PLC CONTINUED D0� ECEM- BER 8, 1979 COMMISSIC�-JERS MINUTES October 18, 1979 y City of New t Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P -C (APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach 'OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion jjxj jjjj1Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x x x xjgular Planning Commission meeting on December 6, Absent 1979, as per the applicant's request. Request to allow front yard setbacks between 10 Item #2 :feet and 15 feet, measured from back of sidewalk, .for garages on various custom single family resi- MODIFI- • ldential lots in Harbor Ridge (where the P -C text CATION (provides that garage spaces facing an access N0. 2457 street shall observe a 5 foot setback or a mini- mum setback of 20 feet, measured from back.of DENIED (sidewalk). ILOCATION: Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 23, 24, 259..27, 28 and 29, Tract No. 9860, located northerly of E1 Capitan Drive and easterly of Spyglass Hill Road.in Harbor 'Ridge iZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Pacific Development Company, Newport Beach OWNER: The .Irvine Company, Newport Beach ;The Public Hearing was opened regarding this ;item and Dave Dmohowski, The Irvine. Company, ap- peared before the Planning Commission and explain .ed that. the lots in question have a problem in !complying with the setback requirements establish • ed by the P -C District Regulations because of Itheir shape and the general topography of the !site and that this particular problem will not re ;occur in any other phase of the Harbor Ridge De- -2- MINUTES = October 18, 1979 w i Gtv of Newr)ort Beach lvelopment. He expressed their feeling that the !granting of this Modification would allow the homebuilder more flexibility in the design of 'his residence than would occur if these lots ob- served 5' setbacks, as allowed by the zoning in .all cases. In conclusion, he added that the :homeowners' rules for this °tract would prohibit people from parking their cars in_ an unsightly manner,. or in the apron of the driveway. He adde that they could comply by seeking a variance with '.in the C. C. & R.'s to bring the building envelop iup -to the 5' setback, but that they felt it would bean inferior solution to providing automatic .garage door openers, and that practically speak- ing, it is very difficult to amend the C. C. & R. ;because of the custom lot declarations which are in accordance with the State Office of Real Es- tate. Motion K !Motion was made. that the Planning Commission make 'the findings as recorded in Exhib.it "A" of the . Staff Report and deny Modification No. 2457. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that a third !finding be added to read,. "The denial in no way !limits the size of structures which may be built !upon the property under the City's Planned Com- munity zoning." Commissioner.Allen accepted Commissioner Beek's amendment to be incorporated into her motion. Mr. Dmohowski explained that this might mean that a number of the lots might be rendered unbuild- .able or be substantially degraded as to the amoun of square footage that would be allowed. Ayes x x Yx ;Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Noes Absent !Request to establis.h an offstreet parking l.ot on Item #3 :a temporary basis in Block 600 of Newport Center !in the C -0 -H District, and the acceptance of.an USE PER - IEnvironmental Document. MIT NO. 1919 • LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No,. 6015, located at 670 Newport Cen- APPROVED CONDI- ter Drive, easterly of Santa Cruz TToNALLY -3- Motion Ayes Absent 0 x aim mW ZONE: October 18, 1979 M MINUTES INDEX Drive and northerly of Newport Center.Drive in Block 600 of New - port Center. C -O -H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Dave Dmohowski, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated their :concurrence with the conditions as set forth in jthe Staff Report. Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as recorded.in.Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approve Use Permit 1919, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report, with.an added Condition No. 13 to read, "That there be weekly vacuum sweeping of the parking lot." Request to create two parcels of land for residen Item #4 tial development where one lot now exists, and th acceptance'of an Environmental Document. RESUBOI- VISION LOCATION: Lot 15, Tract No. 1237, located at _077T2 483 and 485 Morning Canyon Road, on the easterly side of Morni.ng APPROVED Canyon Road, between Seaward Road and East Coast Highway in Corona Highlands. ZONE: R -2 -B APPLICANT: Harold B. Zook, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Same as Applicant -4- M COMMISSIONERS j October 18, 1979 MINUTES x I D In N 9 !City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Harold Zook, Applicant, 485 Morning Canyon , Road, appeared before the Planning Commission and requested that his property be divided with no increase in density. Commissioner.Thomas inquired whether MorningCan- yon Road was within the Coastal Zone, to which James Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning, stated that the Coastal Commission line goes down Coast Highway and turns inland at Sulk Gully, in- cluding the undeveloped land in the unincorporate areas. . !Commissioner Allen inquired as to the size of the ;proposed second lot, to which Mr. Hewicker repli.e ;that it would be approximately 6,000 sq. ft. :Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that two ;lots might be created sub- standard in size be- .cause they contain a sub = standard amount of build !able area, due to the canyon. Mr. Zook responded that the house presently there its constructed on a 450 slope and that the best 'buildable area left would be on the flat area down below. �In response to a question posed by Commissioner All.en, Mr. Zook replied that he does not intend to tear down the house and rebuild, but that he ;intends only to establish separate ownership. ;Commissioner Beek inquired of the applicant whe- ther it would be satisfactory to him if the pro - perty were rezoned to R -1 -B, to which Mr. Zook ;replied that it would be acceptable to him. Mr. Hewicker advised that if the property is in the Coastal Zone, if the resubdivision is approve by the Planning Commission, he will then neces- sarily have to come back to the City and get an approval in concept and go to the Coastal Commis- sion for the final authorization to split the property, and that in the event the City changed • the zoning and the resubdivision were turned down there would be an inconsistency. -5- COMMISSIONERS r October 18, 1979 M Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III I I I I i I INDEX 0 Motion 0 !In response to a question posed by Commissioner IBalalis, Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney, re- .plied that the covenant would be the same as a :deed restriction. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the applicant ;come back with an application for rezoning, to :which Commissioner Beek responded with his feel- ing that the Planning Commission should initiate !same. jIn response to a question posed by Commissioner, ;McLaughlin, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City !has received no notice from the Coastal Commis - sion as to what their intent is regarding the pro posed bill and that this particular proposed piec of legislation does contain.provisions in it and !that in terms of existing Coastal Commission re- gulations, the City has a categorical exemption ;from the regulations governing si.ngle- family !dwellings and duplexes, except where they are ;within 100 feet of the shoreline. Mr. Coffin then advised the Coastal Commission d over any subdivision of the exemption, which is ing a two -lot lot split. that.under existing law, oes have jurisdiction property, regardless of all subdivisions, includ- Motion was made that.the Planning Commission make the findings as recorded.in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approve Resubdivision No. 642, subject to the conditions as also recorded in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report,,and.approve the Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Beek commented regarding the first finding, expressing his feeling that the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Muni- cipal Code, with some exceptions, and that it should be stated, . with the exceptions which are hereby authorized. ", to which Mr. Hewicker advised that Title 19 of the Subdivision Code provides for exceptions. MINUTES October 18, 1979 (ity of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek then suggested deleting Fin- .ding No. 2,, to which Mr. Coffin replied that in the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 19.32.020., lit states that there must be three findings to .grant an exception: 1) special circumstances affecting the property; 2) the exception is nec- essary for the preservation and enjoyment of a .substantial property right of the petitioner; i3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious 'to other property in the vicinity in which other !property is situated. !Commissioner Beek expressed his disagreement with :'Finding No. 3, and stated his preference that :.this finding be deleted. Mr. Coffin recommended keeping Findings No. 4.and 5. • In response to .a suggestion that Condition No.. 7 'be deleted; Mr. Coffin replied that this conldi- ition prevents a gap of land use regulations. i IIn response to a question posed by Commissioner iBeek, Mr. Zook replied that he has no objection ,to Condition No. 7 remaining as is. Ayes Absent 'Commissioner Thomas suggested an added Finding 'No. 7, "The subject property may be designated at a future date as a sensitive habitat area and !such designation may limit the future buildable area of the site." Commissioner Allen suggested a disclosure state- ment to cover future problems they are unsure of related to noise, airport, etc., so as not to delude a future buyer of the property that there was more, buildable area than there in reality is. Motion, as amended to include the following re- vised findings, was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED: -7- COMMISSIONERS 7 i N 7C W October 18, 1979 Z Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III I I I I I INDEX 0 Exhibit .A FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, with exceptions which are hereby authorized, all ordinances of the.City, all applicable gen- eral or specific plans and the Planning Com- mission is satisfied with the plan of sub- division. 2. That there are special circumstances or con- ditions affecting the property. 3. That the exception is necessary for the pre- servation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 4. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or in- jurious to other property in the Vicinity in which the property is located. 5. That the granting of this exception is com- patible with the objectives of the regulatio s governing light, air and the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. �6. That the proposed resubdivision is in con - formance with the General.Plan, and. that the proposed development is compatible with the objectives,, policies, general land uses and 4. programs specified in said plan. 7. The subject property may be designated at a future date as a sensiti.ve habitat.area and such designation may limit future buildable area of the site. 10 N 7C fp October 18, 1979 of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL I I I I 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 0 • Request to permit the construction of a two story office building exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area in a Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has.not been adopted, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. The proposed develop- ment also includes the temporary use.of a modular building for office development during the con- struction stage of permanent structure. A mddi fication to the Municipal Code is also requested, since a portion of the required offstreet parking spaces encroach into the required 5 foot side yar setback adjacent to residentially -zoned property. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3.and 28, Block 270,. Section.A, Newport Beach, located at 2000 West Balboa Boulevard; on the northeasterly side of West Balboa Boulevard between 20th Street and 21st Street, adjacent to McFadden Square. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Thirtieth Street Architects, New- port Beach OWNER: Carl Ackerman, Fullerton IIn response to a question posed by Commissioner !Beek, James Hewicker, Acting Community Develop - !ment Department Director, replied that the wheel - ,stops were 2k feet away from the end of the stall ;and by moving them to 24 ", this would increase ;the effective depth of the stall by 6 ". The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Carl Ackerman, Applicant, appeared before the Planning,Commission and stated his concurrence wi the Conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Member of the Local Coastal Board, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his feeling that this item should be continued until the Local Coastal Item #5 PER- w a� HOW October 18, 1979 of Newport Beach MINUTES. R O L L CALL X 1 1 1 I I I I 1 INDEX 0 Planning Advisory Committee comes before the 'Plan- ning Commission and City Council with its plam, because office uses within this area and coastal dependent uses had been recently discussed and the this item is in the area which was under discius- II ion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner galalis, Mr. Ackerman replied that the current use is a 5 year lease by a real estate company with expectations of office uses, with a secondar; parking use for beachgoers. Commissioner Beek stated that he has no indicatioi that people in this area are suffering from a shortage of office space for their support ser- vices. .Pommissioner Thomas stated his preference.to not add additional office space to an area that.is to serve the neighborhood commercial life. Commissioner Bal.alis.expressed his feeling that hot allowing a,type of use anywhere in the.City presents a concern. Motion x Motion was made that Agenda Item No. 5, Use Per- mit No. 1920, be continued to the regular Plan- ning Commission meeting of December 6, 1979, with .the understanding that the Local Coastal Planning .Advisory Committee will respond regarding this ii tem. Mr. Allen replied that he would meet with the .sub- committee regarding coastally- dependent uses land determine recommendations. Mr. Ackerman expressed his hope that they upgrade ;this section of the community and that denial of !this means a continuing present use, but that he !would accept the continuance. I Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that open ing office ,spaces within the area is not an asset !to Newport Beach and yet creates additional traf- -10- 0 Ayes x Absent Motion Ayes x Absent 99 7 N W N x October 18, 1979 ItV of MINUTES INDEX lic to the City, to which Commissioner Balalis :disagreed. Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that office space is not a priority within the City, that this request is not compatible with this area and that he preferred less square footage on the site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker replied that the range of ,floor area ratios has gone between .5 to a little over 1.0. John Lumis, 30th Street Architects, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission to express his feel - ing that the building is smaller than the duplexe adjacent to it, but that a reduction by 1,000 sq. ft. would not have a tremendously significant ef- 'feet to:the overall mass, and suggested that they ;can at the date of the continuance demonstrate ihow it relates to adjacent buildings. Motion was then voted on, which MOTION.CARRIED. !Request to consider an Amendment to Chapter 20 of Ite the Newport Beach Municipal Code.pertaining to the establishment of a Low - Density Residential AMEN ;District. I�0 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 1Motion was made to withdraw this item, as per the .applicant's request. Request to amend the Rules of Procedure of.the Planning Commission. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney, ex- -11- i'177.LFM Item #7 RULES OF PR CEDURE CONTIN- Motion pion s . Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion I s s Abstain Absent �m x x MINUTES October 18, 1979 of Newport Beach plained that a reading of Robert's Rules of Order indicates that there is no difference between a Substitute Motion and an Amended Motion, but that !in the existing procedure of the Planning Commis - ,�io.n, there is, in fact, a difference and said procedure is inconsistent with Robert's Rules of Orders. Motion was.made that the Planning Commission ap- prove proposed Rule . "F ",.with the revision that the last two sentences as written be reversed, and that the following sentence be added, "It is then in order to move the main motion again, because it then offers a different choice of al- ternatives." ;Commissioner Haidinger stated his preference to follow the procedure as outlined by Robert's Rule of Orders. !Substitute Motion was made to continue Agenda Ite iNo. 7, Rules of Procedure, to the regular Plan - ning Commission meeting of November 8, 1979, pend ling discussion by Commissioners Beek and Haidinge 'regarding the same. TIONAL BUSINESS: * * * x !Motion was made to set for discussion on Novem- x x x x fiber 8, 1979 to initiate revocation proceedings * !for Jazz Pot, as they are operating in violation iof their Use Permit No 288. * * * X iMotion was made to set for public hearing on.De,. x x x x cember 6, 1979 the prohibition of underground 11* !storage of flammable liquids in residential areas * * * t1lMotion was made to allow VTN as the City's con- isultant to retain BDI as their sub - consultant , x .which'MOTION FAILED. * * * -12- INDEX ADDITION- AL BUSI- NESS r1 U October 18, 1979 m a �D w i tity of Newaor Beach There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m. -13- Debra Allen, Secretairy Planning Commission' City of Newport Beach MINUTES Commissioner Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that I remembered that the Local Coastal Plan Advisory Committee designated the bottom of Morning Canyon as a sensitive environmental habitat: That's right up;the middle of the "buildable" section of this lot. I guess my question to the staff is what effect will this have on it if we adopt it. Is there any way we can...if there is an effect, can it be mitigated and still allow the gentleman his lot split? Commissioner Balalis: L.don't see that it would have any more effect than.what it has today. If it goes through the property, that would have!an effect if he wants to rebuild it. James Hewicker: In the event that the bottom of Morning Canyon is in fact designated as a sensitive habitat., the Planning Com mission will be:holding public hearings on the Local Coastal Program and following the adoption of the Local Coastal Program then there will,be a second phase which would be the preparation and adoption of; implementing ordinances and so forth which would establish regulations and /or setbacks in these sensitive habitat areas, so I guess the answer to the question is that in the future there will probably be more controls than exist at the present time. Commissioner Thomas: Maybe in the conditions that we note, I don't know if this is appropriate, that we note that this is happening and that the flat area at the bottom ... my concern is that some of that flat area may not be buildable; in other words, • you may be ableto replace the building on the existing house site, but you may not be able to expand it and build it all the way down to thebottom of the canyon and.I don't want to grant the lot split now giving that assumption and then find that some other agency three months down the line says "boom" you can't do it. Commissi.one.r Ba alis: I don't see any problems with that at all because if that happens in the future, that's a future problem. He's got a hous there now that's not going to go away and the •only time it becomes a problem is if he wants to rebuild on that site. Commissioner Allen: I don't know if this is an appropriate solution, but it seems to me that when we have that problem, fu- ture problems that we're not sure about in terms of noise, the airport and that sort of thing, we put in a disclosure statement. Is that an appropriate ... I think what Hal.is concerned about what Commissioner Thomas is concerned about is that we not be deluding some future buyer of the property that there was moire buildable area perhaps than there is and to protect the future buyer from a mi$ understanding. Governments are frequently ac- cused of changing the rules if you will, confusing people, taking away property rights and that sort of thing and I was wondering if maybe a simple disclosure statement that that might ... that this property might be subject to review by the Local Coastal Program would solve that concern. ILI Commissioner Balalis that this may be in • mission and theCity what you want to do? Commissioner.Thomas: a.warning is noted. • If you wish to make a finding to the effect sensitive habitat area per the Coastal Com -. will not be liable in the event.... Is that Yes, something along that fine, so that Commissioner Balalis: If you can give us a couple of words so we can put everything here and.move forward from this item. James Hewicker: This would be a seventh finding that the subject property may bedesignated at a future date as a sensitive habi- tat area and such designation may limit the future buildable' area of the site. Commissioner Balalis: Since the motion that I made doesn't appear to be anything like the conclusion of the motion, I think maybe I should dither withdraw mine and Commissioner Beek make yours or we should vote on the amendment. Commissioner Beek: Well, you accepted the amendments I made, so I'm happy with your motion. Commissioner Balalis: If that's the case,.unbess there's any- thing else, we Gave 7 findings and 10.conditions' and do we all understand whatthe ... maybe I should restate them: Finding No. 1 as it is on page 5, Finding Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as they are on Page 2, excuse me, Finding No. l had an addition to it, Commissioner Beek, you made a change, as I recall.... Commissioner Beek: Added a clause, right. Commissioner Balalis: Added a clause, o.k.,.so we have Finding Nos. 1, 2 and 3on Page 2, Finding.Nos. 4 and 5 on Page 5 and a disclaimer, whifh is Finding No. 7. The conditions will remain as they are. VOTE TAKEN - All Ayes; Motion Carried. Is