Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1974COMMISSIONERS D Ms s q m.f Present Absent Motion Ayes Absent t� (Motion Ayes 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACL1 Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Place: City Council Chambers Time.: 7:00 P.M. nn4c• Nnve ml.uw 7 107A MINUTES rcmvc .,. .o ,n - IMI7CJC X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R..V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning William R. Foley, Environmental Coordinator Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer Shirley Harbeck, Secretary X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 17, 1974 X X X X X X were approved as written. X Item #1 Proposed amendment to the Newport Beach Municipal AMENDMENT Code pertaining to the control and regulation of W. signs. CONT. TO Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach DEC. 5 X Planning Commission continued this matter to the X X X X X X meeting of December 5, 1974. X Item . #2 Request an extension of a previously approved TENTATIVE tentative map to subdivide 20.801 acres into ten MAP building sites, four lots for landscaping and TACT parking, and one model apartment complex site for 8336 condominium development. EXTENSION Location: Portion of Lot 172, Block 1; PAVED Irvine's Subdivision, located south of Hospital Road and south - easterly of Superior Avenue in the Planned Community of Versailles-on- the-Bluffs. Zone: P -C Page 1. COMMISSIONERS CITY -OF NEWPORT BEACtI D� '^> T D T r• p m � '" r m D-+ T v � Z T p ; p N RO&AL L r1 L-A Motion Ayes Noes Absent 0 MINUTES November 7. 1974 Applicant: Donald J. Scholz & Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineers: Toups Engineering, Inc., Santa Ana Community Development Director Hogan reviewed this matter with the.Commission and advised that the project is now in litigation due to permit denial by the South Coast Regional Commission and the California Coastal Commission.. He also answered questions of the Commission relative to weed abatement on the vacant property, temporary signs, and the stipulated judgment in effect between the. City and the property owner. City Attorney O'Neil advised the Commission that it would be appropriate to grant the extension since the project has been approved by the City and the only reason the developer has not proceede Is the difficulty in obtaining permits from the California Coastal Commission and the South Coast Regional.Commission. �( X X X X X Motion was made recommending that the approval on the Tentative Map of Tract No. 8336 be extended X to December 25, 1976, subject to the following X conditions: 1. That the twenty -two conditions of approval as, originally attached to the approval of.the tentative map shall be fulfilled. 2. That.prior to the issuance of any building permits, the existing oil wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with the. Agreement dated December 21, 1970 and sub - s.equently extended on January 16, 1974. Item #3 Request to create two parcels of land for develop- RESUB- m ent' where one lot now exists. DM IT—ION, No. 47T_ Location: Lot 5, Tract 7694, located at 1001- 1101 Quail Street, on the south- APPROVED westerly side of Quail Street CONDI- between Spruce Avenue and Dove MULLY Street in "Newport Place." Zone: P -C Page 2. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (� m m m4 QoAIr T November 7. 1974 MINUTES INUCA Applicant: Edker Pope, Corona del Mar Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Fullerton Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. J. Faerigan, Stevens Engineering, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the appi`icant and advised there were no objections to the recommended conditions, however, the applicant has requested a modification to Condition No. 4 to allow a utility easement across either Parce1.2 or across Lot 3 of Tract 7694 which lies south - easterly of the residual parcel and which.is.also owned by the applicant. City Engineer Nolan advised there were no objections to the requested change to Condition No. 4. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Mo&n X Motion was made that Resubdivision No. 473 be Ayes. X X X X X X approved subject to the following conditions: Absent X 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2 That all public improvements be.constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a six foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk be constructed directly behind the curb along the Quail Street and North Bristol Street front- ages. 4: That each parcel be served with separate water and sewer connections in a manner approved.by the Public Works Department and a private easement for sewer and storm drain purposes be provided for the benefit of Parcel 1. 5. That a four foot wide easement for public utilities and public sidewalk purposes be . dedicated along the North Bristol Street frontage. 6. That the driveway approach for.vehicular acces to Parcel 7 from North Bristol Street have the. configuration and be at the location shown on the approved North Bristol Street.improvement plans. Page 3, 0 f.. J COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r+ m 1 T Nnvnmhun 7 107A MINUTES Request to amend a previously approved use permit IMYCR Item #4 USE for an adult retirement care center by reducing PERMIT the number of beds from 170 to 125. Further '13T6. request to obtain approval of an off -site parking agreement so as to allow a portion of the existing CONT. TO parking spaces for said adult retirement center to Nil be utilized by an adjoining convalescent hospital site. Location: Lots 6 and 7, Tract 5854, located at 4000 Hilaria Way, located on the easterly side of Hilaria Way, westerly of Newport Boulevard near Hoag Hospital. zone: A -P -H Applicant: First Healthcare Corporation, Santa And Owner: Elmer R. Slavik, Pasadena Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker, reviewed the request with the Commission, includ- in.g the parking requirements for the use. Public hearing was opened in connection with. this matter. Doug Blanton, Concept Planning Systems, Los Angele , appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the conditions as recommended by the staff and requested that an additional condition be added whereby the amend - ment "to the use permit would run concurrent with, the lease which will expire January 31, 1990, at which time the use would revert back to that which presently exists without further.review. The legality of such a request was discussed by the Planning Commission and Assistant City Attorne Coffin advised that traditionally, use permits run with the land and if the use is changed in any way the'use permit must be amended, the amendment also to run with the land. A time limit may be placed on a'use. permit, however, such a condition would terminate the entire use permit. Staff advised they had no objections to placing a time limit on the interim use, however no.one knows what circumstances will exist at the end of Page 4. COMMISSIONERS I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH cmy T'r m4 m 9611WAII m Nnvpmhpr 7. 1974 MINUTES. ,uwev the lease period and it would be best to review the matter again at that time rather than permit- ting the use to automatically re.ve :rt back to what existed before the interim use was allowed. City,Attorney O'Neil advise.d the Commission of previous discussions with Mr. Blanton. and the applicant regarding the request and suggested that since this was a unique situation, it may be best to continue the matter pending further review. Planning Commission discussed the effects of placing a time limit on the property. They also discussed the off -site parking agreement request. There being no others desiring to appear and be .heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission discussed the alternative of imposing a condition which would terminate the use permit upon expiration of the lease. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made to approve the amendment to Use Permit No. 1396 subject to • the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Motion X An amendment to the motion was made, adding Condi- tion No. 8 to provide that the use permit terininat on January 31, 1990. Motion X It was apparent that the applicant's representativ Ayes X X X X X X desired to comment on the proposed action, there - Absent X fore motion was made to re -open the public hearing Doug Blanton again appeared before the Commission and advised that the applicant could not agree with the proposed condition of a definite time limit without first consulting with the property owner and requested that the matter be continued for that reason. Theme being no others desiring to appear and be he.ard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X In view of the applicant's request and concerns . Ayes X X X X X X expressed by the City Attorney, motion was.made Absent X to.continue this matter to the meeting of November 21, 1974. Page 5. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACEI. m £ y= m V3'; MINUTES Z A N ROLL (Motion NnvpmhPr 7. 1974 unEw Item #5 Request to permit the construction of second floor room additions on a nonconforming duplex with two MODIFI- CAT N garage spaces (where the ordinance requires three N0. 846 APPEAL garage spaces). An existing nonconforming, un- enclosed patio structure also encroaches to the northwesterly side property line and to within 10 DENIED feet of the front (i.e. Channel side) property line (where the Ordinance requires that an accessory use maintain a three foot side yard setback and a 20 foot front yard setback). Location: Lot 5, Block 239, Canal Section, located at 3908 River Avenue, on the northeasterly si.de of River Avenue between 39th Street and 40th Street in West Newport. Zone: R -2 Applicant: Standard American Builders, Beverly Hills Owner: Edgar and Elizabeth Bundren, Newport Beach Appellant: Same as Applicant Following discussion as to the number of dwelling . units effected.by the Residential Development Standards, public hearing was opened in connection with the above request. .Abe Werber, representative of the applicant and Edgar Bundren, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer questions regarding the requested modification. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. X Based on the intent that the Residential Develop- ment Standards applied to all building or remodel= ing, as well as the objective to provide additional parking within congested areas, motion was made to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee. Discussion on the motion included a comparison of this request with a previous one which was approve and it was pointed out that the degree of the previously approved modification was minor in Page 6. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF " y�my m `4 mT <q A Z A N RO ALL r November Ayes Absent 0 0 1974 NEWPORT BEACLi MINUTES ..new nature and did not have the potential of adding to the parking problems as this request did. X X X X X X The motion to deny the appeal was voted on and X carried. Item #6 Request to establish a Planned Community Develop- AMENDMENT meet Plan and Development Standards for "Delaney's 0. 439 Cannery Village" on the Lido Peninsula, and the acceptance of an environmental document. DENIED Location: Portion of Lot 6 of Section 28 and Lot 2 of Section 33, Township 6" South, Range 10 West, San Bernardin Meridian, located at 700 Lido Park Drive on the south side of 28th Street, westerly of the Prolongatio of Lido Park Drive, on the Lido Peninsula. Zone: P -C Applicant: Delaney's Cannery Village, Laguna Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Community Development Director Hogan commented on the request advising that same was continued for the purpose of securing additional material as requested by the Commission at the'ir previous meeting. He pointed out that the proposal was in accordance with the General Plan.of the City of Newport Beach. Environmental Coordinator Foley reviewed the changes made in the Environmental Impact Report covering the concerns of the Commission as express d at the previous meeting. Traffic.Engineer Darnell.reviewed the traffic studies which were made following the previous hearing. He also reported on projected traffic . for alternate land uses on the entire peninsula which were reflected on Page 30 of the Environ- mental Impact Report. Weston Pringle, Vice President of Crommelin - Pringl & Assoc., traffic consultants, appeared before. the 'Commi:ssion and answered questions-in connection with the peak -hour traffic volumes., traffic . Page 7. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC.Li MINUTES. A November 7, 1974 r I IV�EJI capacity of the street system, and data contained in the Environmental Impact Report. He also commented on the changes which have been made in . the design, including the turn- around at the end of Lido Park Drive, changing the perpendicular parking.to diagonal parking, and driveway access to,the project. He felt these changes would have a significant improvement on traffic congestion in the area. The traffic signal at the intersection of Newport. Boulevard and Via Lido Drive was discussed and Traffic Engineer Darnell advised the Commission of future plans in connection therewith. He also commented on future plans for the Rhine Wharf Park and operational characteristics regarding parking in order to improve the flow of traffic on Lido Park Drive. Richard Terry appeared before the Commission to answer questions and clarify statistics contained in the Environmental Impact Report. Planning Commission discussed various points of concern such as shortage of fuel, lack of informa- tion on cost - revenue and economic benefits obtaine from the proposed development. They also discusse the development of P -C standards to.cov,er the entire area as opposed to a small portion as well as the initiation of proceedings by the City to adopt a Specific Area Plan as an alternate. Staff advised that a Specific.Area Plan would require an amendment to the General Plan. Also, there were problems created because of multiple ownership of property on the peninsula. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Richard Dodd, Architect, 1617 Westcliff Drive,, Newport Beach, appeared before .the.Commission and commented on the development and the benefits which would be provided to the City as well as the public. He gave a slide presentation which included pictures of the proposed.project, the existing developments in and around the property in question, and another project in Southern California indicating the character . which they were trying to develop. He commented on the • project as it related to.the General Plan and felt it should be approved. Page 8. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACLJ D T S Z o m£ �£ a ; Re &ALL IS P N November 7. 1974 MINUTES. Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened at 10:00 P.M. The following persons appeared before the Commis- sion in connection with this matter:. K. L. Reaume, 206 Via Antibes, Lido Island, opposed the project because of its impact on the area with respect to traffic and congestion. Dick Lane, 711. Lido Park Drive; opposed the projec because of the traffic and questioned whether. existing parking spaces for the Moana Apartments on Lido Park Drive would be lost with construction of the turn_ around. He also questioned the need for another development such as this in the area. Malcolm D'Ambrogio, 711 Lido Park Drive, questione the traffic count studies and whether they could be considered accurate because of .the time of year in which they were taken. • Howard Beal, 700 Lido Park Drive, Space 32,: ques- tioned the reports pertaining to air.and water pollution. Bill Wittman, 366 San Miguel, representing the Lido Village Trailer Park owners and residents, opposed the project because of the increase in traffic and congestion and felt the Environmental Impact Report was incomplete and inaccurate. He presented petitions in opposition to the project, One with 298 signatures and one with 678 signature . Paul Ziesing, 420 31st Street, Co- President of the Cannery Village Association, was neither for not, against the project but voiced concern over employee parking, benefits to other businesses in the area,.and.traffic congestion. Dorothea Majofsky, 700 Lido Park Drive, Space 31, opposed the project. Jim Riddle, 700 Lido Park Drive, opposed the pro - ject because of additional cost to the City in construction of bulkheads and boardwalks, traffic congestion, and inadequate parking. Page.9. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT - T MOM, S P N Nnuamhap 7 107A BEACH MiNUtEs Tom Peckenpaugh, Attorney for.Vard Wallace, commented on the lack of consideration to include Mr. Wallace in discussions of the project. He als commented on basic concerns relative to impact on the residential uses, traffic congestion, usabilit of Mr. Wallace's property, and the cumulative effe is on the peninsula. He felt the Environmental Impac Report should be expanded to include the concerns as previously expressed and requested they be allowed time for their expert to make an analysis and respond to the final EIR. Claire Reed, 33 Channel Road, Lido Park, opposed the project because of the human element involved and the lack of employee parking in the area. Jack Shafer appeared in favor of the project and felt it would benefit the City and bring business back into the area and that in any event, there would be congestion with or without the proposed project. • Mario Pucini, also appeared in favor of the project. Russell Listard, retired physician, residing in Lido.Park, commented on the success and failure of various businesses in the area and requested that the project be denied and something be done about the traffic situation. Tom Peckenpaugh, Attorney for Vard Wallace, commented on the noise level and impact on the adjacent property as well as various statements made throughout the EIR to which he disagreed. Shirley Evans, 24 Lido Village, opposed the projec because of the increase in traffic and the dis- placement of residents, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. She also reported on a survey made as to the requirements of other trailer parks in connection with move -ins and the availability of trailer spaces. Robert Shelton appeared on behalf of.John Cur.ci to ascertain discussion by the Planning Commission on the points contained in Mr. Curci "s letter dated November 5, 1974, i.e., generation of • traffic, widening of Lido Park Drive, off - street parking standards, and the turn - around. Tom Evans, 24 Lido Park, appeared in opposition becau'se of the parking situation. Page 10. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACLJ MINUTES of%&e1 P November 7, 1974 Parking in and around the proposed development was again reviewed by the Staff for the benefit of those in the audience. Marilyn Arnold, Lido Peninsula, commented on the parking for patrons and employees of the proposed restaurant. Don Killian appeared in rebuttal to comments made throughout the hearing relative to traffic, the Rhine Channel, employee parking, and Mr. Wallace's property, and objected to further delays as he felt all the studies have been made and informatio gathered which are reflected in the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Killion answered questions of the Commission as to the traffic counts, whether or not the area could support the project, and the relocation of the trailer park residents. Paul Ziesing voiced concern over employee parking and compared this development with that of Koll`s Lido Village. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made recommending that Amendment No.439 and the acceptance of the Environmental Impact Report be denied, based on doubts that the develop- ment will add to the area as well as the detri- mental effects on the area relative to employee parking, the traffic situation, impacts on local residents due to mixed uses, etc. .. Discussion on the motion included comments by .Commissioner Parker that the plan was good and does comply with the.general plan, however, the opposition has indicated that the project or any changes at this time are not wanted by residents in the area and it may be that the project is premature. He also felt some of the facts and figures in the EIR were difficult to believe. Commissioner Seely felt the EIR was.very complete, that the project complied with the Land Use Elemen , that the plan was for a good and attractive develo - ment, and that it would probably be very successful. He was, however, concerned over the cumulative effects that developments such as this may have on the Lido Peninsula and commented on the possibilities of.adopting.a Specific Area Plan for the peninsula as an alternative. Page 11. Ayes Noes Absent Motion Motion Ayes Noes Absent Moti on Motion Ayes Noes Absent 0 COMMISSIONERS DGi^'a m y m4 M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACki NnvPmhar 7. 197d MINUTES MUM^ Planning Commission discussed the possibilities of adopting a Specific Area Plan for the peninsula as an alternative to the motion to deny. X X X Fo llowing discussion, the motion was voted on and X X X failed. X' X Motion was made recommending to the City Council that proceedings be initiated for the adoption of a Specific Area Plan encompassing the present P -C District on the Lido Peninsula. Staff reviewed and discussed procedures and obligations of the Commission as they pertain to the disposition of Amendment No. 439, following X which motion was made recommending approval of X X Amendment No. 439 and acceptance of the Environ- X X X X mental Impact Report. Motion failed. X X Motion was made that in accordance with Section 20.54 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, a resolution of intention be adopted whereby the City.would initiate proceedings for the adoption of a Specific Area Plan for the Lido Peninsula. As a matter of procedure, it was pointed out that an amendment to the General Plan would be necessar and that the amendment could not be considered until February, 1975. X The motion was then amended to add "and that if X X X X X necessary, the procedural steps be commenced to X initiate a conforming amendment to the General X Plan." The original motion and amendment were voted on and carried. Item #7 Request to permit the construction of four resi- MODIFI- dential units on a site in the R -3 District where second floor balconies on one of the dwelling. CATION Nom. -9-55 units encroach to within 6 feet and 8 feet of the rear (ocean side) property line (where the Ordin- ance requires a 10 foot rear yard setback) and 4 foot side yard setbacks (where the Ordinance. APPROVED OCR TI- NALLY requires a 12 foot side yard setback on one side when providing access to a single row of dwelling group), and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Page 12. com missioNERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC8 MINUTES, November 7, 1974 Location: Portion of Lots 8 and 9, Block 22, East Side Addition to Balboa Tract, and Section 35, T6S, R10W, and Section 2, T7S, R10W, S.B.M., (Parcel 1 of Resubdivision No. 403 ' Amended), located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the south side of East Balboa Boulevard between "E" and "F" Streets an the Balboa Peninsula. Zone:, R -3 Applicant: Brion S. Jeannette, Architect, for Daniel Connelly and. John Ilsley Owner: John A. Blaich, Trustee, Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan commented on the directive from the City Council concerning development of the property whereby some compro- mise could be made between the developer and the • adjacent property owners. He reviewed the project in detail, advising of the various requests made by.the adjacent property owner and the architect's attempt to comply. It was pointed out that some compromise had been made, however, the adjacent . property owner was not completely satisfied with the development and the developer was not com- pletely satisfied with staff's recommendation.' Mr. Hogan also pointed out that the development as designed could require either 10 or 11 parking spaces, depending on the interpretation of the Municipal Code, i.e., the combined square footage of all.the units would necessitate 11 parking spaces whereas the.square footage of each building separately would require only.a total of 10 spaces. Staff also interpretated the Municipal Code where- by a. modification for the 12 foot side yard set- back was unnecessary. It was pointed.out that because there had been much controversy on the development of the subject property, the various requests as outlined were advertised for public hearing in order that the Planning Commission could consider all the matters and make the determinations on the interpretation of the Municipal Code along with the review of the • environmental document. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Page 13. 0 COMMISSIONERS i m CITY OF N EWPORT BEACH Nnvcmhur 7 107A MINUTES Invert Brion Jeannette, architect for the project, appear ed before the Commission and presented a revised plot plan for veview which indicated the placement of the 11 parking spaces should the Commission interpret the code in such a manner as the addi -. tional space would be required.. William. Gold, 1570,E. Oceanfront, reminded the Commission of petitions received and stated that there were no objections to the development as lo.ng as same complied with the City ,ordinances. Shirley Moore, Balboa, appeared before the Commis- sion in opposition because of the increased density and.the need for more parking, the height of the structure, and felt an environmental impact report should be filed rather than a negative declaration. Dorothy Hutchison, Balboa, opposed the project because of the already congested area and felt the project was out of character with other residents on the peninsula. Harry Kamph, 1320 E. Oceanfront, appeared before the Commission and reviewed a letter dated Novem- ber 4, 1974, which he presented to the Planning Commission which in essence requested that develop ment_be in accordance with all City ordinances without benefit of any modifications and that an environmental impact report be .filed. Thomas Kamph, Attorney and property owner, appear - ed before the Commission and commented on the conflict existing between the developer and adjacent property owners in the area and felt that a complete environmental impact report should be filed with the City. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission questioned the directive of the .City Council regarding the filing of an envi ronmental impact report and staff advised that Council requested that the EIR procedure as established by City Council Policy be followed. Height limits and setbacks within the.R -1 and R -3 Districts were discussed and compared. Page 14. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH h m Z P P u onae„ November 7, 1974 MINUTES Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that Planning Ayes X X X X X Commission make the determination that the modifi- Absent X cation for the 12 foot side yard setback was not necessary, that parking should be based on. each individual building thereby requiring only 10 park ing spaces for the entire development', and recom- mended the following to the City Council: 1. That the Negative Declaration be approved. 2. That development shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations as submitted except as noted below. 3. That the requested modification for the balcony encroachments into the ocean side setback be denied. 4. That all other provisions of the residential development standards and the R -3 District be met. Man X There being no further business, motion was made Ayes X X X X X to adjourn the meeting. Time: 1:10 A.M. Absent X JAMES Secretary, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach i Page 15.