Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1975AV COMMISSIONERS CALL Present Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent M&on Ayes Absent m < p p >Z N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City.Council Chambers Timer 7:00 P.M. Date: November 20, 1975 MINUTES INDEX x x x x x x X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator William R. Foley, Environmental Co-ordinator David Dmohowski, Senior Planner Shirley Harbeck, Secretary . X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 6, 1975 X X X X X X were approved as written. X Item #1 Proposed revision of the land use designations for GENERAL the Aeronutronic -Ford site, and resulting changes PLAN to the Land Use Element and, possibly, the TRENUMENT . 31 Residential Growth Element. (Requested by Aeronutronic- Ford.) CONT. TO x Planning Commission continued this matter to the DEC. X X X X X meeting of December 4, 1975. X Item #2 Requested amendment to the Land Use Element to GENERAL add "Administrative, Professional and Financial L�— Commercial," as an alternate use, in addition to XM—ENDMENT the "Recreational and Marine Commercial" designa- N9. 32 tion for the property at the southeast corner of Bayside Drive and Marine Aven.ue. (Requested by REMOVED The Irvine Company.) FROM WENDA X Planning Commission withdrew this matter from the X X X X X X agenda. x Page 1. 0 0 COMMISSIONERS p PDj, N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Novemher 7n. 1975 MINUTES unev Item #3 Requested amendment to the Land Use and Residen- GENERAL PLAN tial Growth Elements to change the designation for a lot in the "County triangle" area (off Superior Avenue) from "Multi- Family Residential" to "General AMENDMENT NN T.75 _3 Industry." (Requested by the property owner.) DENIED Senior Planner Dmohowski reviewed the staff report with the Commission and the possible relocation'of the boundary lines. He also reviewed the mixture of uses in the area and answered questions regard -. ing the request. Public hearing was opened in connection with..this matter. Don Schutt (whose father, Otto Schutt, owns pro -.. 'perty at 847 W. 15th Street) appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request as he felt that changing the land use from multi - family residential to industrial would devaluate the land and would have a tremendous effect_._ on_:i,n.nes_tm.e.nts_ Which had been made by older and. retired people,. who were long time residents of the area. He.also read a letter of opposition received from Jesse L. and Nellie Mae Jones, 843 W. 15th Street. Barbara Forteville, agent for the seller of the property, appeared before the Commission and advised she had been in contact with several of the surrounding property owners and they indicated they had no objections to changing the land use to industrial. Mrs. Krueger, 1455 G Superior, appeared in opposi- tion as she did not want to live next door to an industrial use. Mrs. Culdoff, 1472 Monrovia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to allowing an industrial use in a residential area which was being upgraded with new apartments. She felt that the land would be less val.uable if it were zoned M -1. Ed Kogler, 636 Joann Street, Costa Mesa, owner - seller of the property in questions which consists of 112 acre in the County triangle, appeared befor the Commission in favor of light industrial, since commercial uses are on the north and west of the property. Page 2. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6 A F Z N sA PAR Nnvcmhcr 90 _ 7975 MINUTES m nsy Mike Johnson, 5112 River, West Newport, voiced concern with the impact of industrial.uses on property values which might be reduced if the land use was changed to industrial. Robert Greyshock, 408 Lugonia, buyer of the subject property, appeared before the Commission and advised that the reason for the request was to allow for the construction of storage garages which are greatly needed in the area. He advised that the property was presently landlocked with only an easement for access and that development of apartments would not be possible unless addi- tional property was obtained. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Community Development Director Hogan advised that the area contained mixed uses and could be devel- oped either way. Many of the industrial uses within the triangle were relatively new and would probably remain for many years. The area to the . north in Costa Mesa is well developed with indus- trial uses, whereas the area to the south from Newport Beach is being developed with residential uses, therefore the area in question could logic - ally be developed either way. He also commented. on the odd shape of various parcels in the area and the problem of access to some of the property. Planning Commission discussed the density which would be allowed under the County zoning (i.e., 25 to 30 dwelling units per acre or 1 unit per 11000 square feet) as compared to that recommended by the Newport Beach General Plan (i.e., 15 dwell- ing units per acre maximum). Advance Planning Administrator Cowell pointed out that at the time the General Plan was developed, a detailed analysis of this unincorporated area was not made because of more pressing matters concerning areas within the City. However, since this request has been made and rather than change the land use on only one parcel, it may be appropriate to take another look at the area to determine if there was a better solut.ion to the problem of mixed uses, keeping in mind the • desires of the property owners within the area. Page 3. Motion 0 Ayes Noes Absent 0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Nnvemher 2n. 1975 MINUTES !NDEX Commissioner Beckley commented that the proposal for storage garages was laudable because of the intent and location adjacent to existing indust- rial. He also commented that the intensity of the area would be prohibitive if all single family residences were developed as multi - family apartments at the County density. Commissioner Parker commented that since the area consisted of fairly even mixed uses and future land use planning could go either residential or industrial, and although the single request may have some merit, he felt inclined to leave the as is until such time as there was a _des_ignat,ion . trend evident and more pressure to make a change. X Motion was made that General Plan Amendment No. 33 be denied and that the Planning Commission recom- mend to the City Council that no action be taken to amend the General Plan. Commissioner Seely voiced concern with the poten- tial intensity if a substantial increase in multi- family uses were considered throughout the area but felt that more information was needed before any changes were made at this time. Planning Commission briefly discussed the possib- ility of a specific area plan, the uncertainty and division of property owners as to how the area should be developed, and the need.for further studies of the area. X X X X Following the discussion, motion was voted on and X X carried. X Item #4 Request to create three parcels for residential RESUB- development where two lots now exist. 16 VISION KO-7-5-0 3 Location: Portion of Lot 17, Newport Heights, located at 2420, 2426, and 2426k - APPROVED 15th Street, on the northeasterly CC IDT-- side of 15th Street between Gary TINED Place and Powell Place in Newport Heights. Zone: R -1 Page 4. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 20. 1975 INDEX Applicant: Ken Stuart, Corona del Mar Owner: Margie M. Andrews, Newport Beach Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker advised that both the property owner and the purchaser were willing to move the northerly line of Parcels l and 2 in order to eliminate the need for a modification. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Ken Stuart, 315 Goldenrod, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and. recommendations, including relocation of the property line. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make A s X X X X X X the following findings: Ant X 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific.plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable gen- eral and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the pro- posed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substan- tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the • proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Page 5. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH v' CALL 0 0 MINUTES Novamhar 9n_ 1Q7;, mvcn 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 503, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That new individual water and sewer connection to serve Parcel 3 be made to the existing Ovate and sewer mains in 15th Street. 3. That the existing structure located at 2426k 15th Street shall be eliminated as a dwelling unit and shall be converted into a two car garage for the main building on Parcel No. 2, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on Parcel No. 3. 4.— That the rear lot line of Parcel 2 shall be moved a distance sufficient to eliminate the need for a modification on the existing garage. The rear lot line adjoining Parcel 1 may be moved the same distance so as to preclude a jog in the common boundary line between Parcel 3 and Parcels 1 and 2. Item X15 Request to amend Use Permit No. 1302 so as to permit the installation of three identification USE PETIT signs at the roof level of the former Centinela TTGZ— Bank building. ENDED DENIED Location: Portion of Lot 170, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3333 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast High- way, easterly of Newport Boulevard on Mariner's Mile. Zone: C -2 Applicant: Federal Signs, Los Angeles Owner: E. S. M. Brunzell, Newport Beach Page 6. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'C T T ➢ T T R4#CALL N November 20, 1975 MINUTES INDEX Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Lou Linmeyer of Federal Signs and Signals appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter. He advised that the Tokai Bank had leased the space with the understanding that their sign would replace that of the Centinela Bank and was assured there would be no problems with the change provided they had Coastal Commission approval. . Community Development Director Hogan commented on the restrictions which were imposed on the original use permit by the Planning Commission and the error which was made issuing building permits for erection of the signs for Centinela Bank. Robert Bell, Vice President and Manager of Tokai Bank, Newport Beach Branch, appeared before the Commission and commented on the importance of the signs for identification purposes. Gene Boswell, manager of the property, appeared • before the Commission and advised that the owner had no objections to the signs and also felt that Tokai Bank should not be penalized because of past errors. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission deny the amendment to Use Permit No. 1302 and make the following findings in connection therewith: 1. Adequate signing can be provided for the bank use at grade or on the first level of the 5 -story building as approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Approval of the subject signs could establish a precedent for similar identification signs on other tall commercial buildings on Newport Bay. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 1302 (Amended) will, 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 and will be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Page 7. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH s 9 A A Z N L AN?e s N Ant MINUTES November 20, 1975 INDEX Commissioner Seely commented that while an appli- cant should not be penalized for prior mistakes, also he should not benefit by prior mistakes and felt that the owner.was well aware of the original conditions of approval and could have prevented the error from occuring in the first place. Also, consideration should be given to the recent con= cerns with signing throughout the City, especially the signing on tall buildings, and development of the proposed sign ordinance. Commissioner Parker concurred with Commissioner Seely and also felt that the location of the bank, in terms of identification, was better than most others in the community and that all banks should labor under the same sign restrictions. Commissioner Beckley commented that if the pro- posed sign ordinance had been adopted, it would not have prohibited signing of an appropriate size being placed on the building. X X X X X Following the discussion, motion was voted on and X carried. X Item #6 Request to permit the establishment of a cafe with USE on -sale beer and wine in the M -1 District, and the PERMIT acceptance of an offsite parking agreement for a portion of the required parking spaces. The pro- posed development includes one parallel parking APPROVED space that encroaches to within 7 feet of the rear C NO NO - property line (where the Ordinance requires a TALLY minimum 10 foot rear yard setback in -the M -1 District when abutting an alley). Location: Lot 23, Block 225, Lancaster's Addition, located at 2813 Villa Way on the southwesterly side of Villa Way between 28th Street and 29th Street in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Paula Schoepe, Newport Beach Owner: R. D. Miller, Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Page 8. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e�... November 20. 1975 MINUTES INDEX Paula Schoepe, 502 E. Bay, applicant, appeared before the Commission in connection with this request. She felt that because of the uniqueness of the area and the operation of the proposed business, additional parking would not be neces- sary and advised there was no place in the area where she could provide the additional parking spaces recommended by the staff. Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker advised that the parking proposed by the applicant was located on property presently utilized by a plating company which was an industrial use and had no parking requirements under the Municipal Code, however, there were parking needs. He commented on the concerns of the Traffic Engineer as to the size and arrangement of the parking spaces as outlined in the staff report and the recent criticism of the City in allowing cars to back out on 28th Street from a parking area. Jerry Rinehart, 428 Orion Way, appeared before the Commission and commented on his observation • that the spaces were usually 2 /3rds vacant and that traffic coming to the immediately adjacent businesses were only parked for approximately 15 to 30 minutes. He felt that the proposed restau- rant would not cause additional congestion and that there was a need for this type of restaurant in the area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. As to the concerns of the Traffic Engineer, Commissioner Beckley pointed out that each use permit was considered on its own merit and this would not constitute blanket approval. Also, in viewing the actual site and observing traffic, he did not feel there would be any traffic or backing problems on Villa Way which is a one -way street because of the configuration of the parking on the plating company site. Planning Commission discussed the uniqueness of the area, the apparent.compatability between cars, bicycles and pedestrians, and the aspects of a specific area plan and related parking. . Sion X Following discussion, motion was made that Plan- ning Commission make the following findings: Page 9. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES <me" Zi O�A... N November 20. 1975 ,uncy 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Four parking spaces onsite plus six parking spaces located on the plating company site across the street are adequate for the pro- posed development, since the "outdoor" restau- rant will substantially cater to people who are already shopping in Cannery Village or who walk or ride bicycles to the site. 3. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to a portion of the required on -site parking and circulation, walls and landscaping, will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structure and brick patio have been in existence for many years. • 5. That the establishment, maintenance or opera- tion of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifica- tion is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1775 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. and approve Use Permit No. 1775, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan. Page 10. COMMISSIONERS s�nu, 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ,unex 2. That the existing metal shed located on the rear of the site shall be removed so as to allow one employee parking space adjacent to the 10 foot wide alley. Said parking space shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or other street surfacing material of a permanent nature. 3. That the restaurant facility shall not be open for business prior to 11:00 A.M. or after 7:00 P.M. 4. That all new exterior lighting and signs shall conform to Chapter 20.53 of the Newport Beach . Municipal Code. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys, or adjoining properties. 6. That a maximum of three tables with twelve seats shall be permitted in the patio area and • six tables with twenty four seats shall be allowed within the structure, for a total of thirty six seats. 7. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 50 of the Air Pollution Control District. In addition, the kitchen hood system shall . have an automatic fire protection system installed. 8. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee 9. That the development standards related to circulation, walls, landscaping and a portion of the parking requirements are waived. 10. That an offsite parking agreement shall be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum of 6 parking spaces shall be provided on an approved site for the duration.of the restaurant use on the property in question. • Commissioner Seely voiced concern with the cumulative effect requests of this kind could have on the area and urged that the sufficiency and workability of the parking be specifically Page 11. Ayes Absent P 0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Nnvamher 9n_ 1g75 MINUTES INDEX reviewed at the end of two years when the exten- sion of the use permit was given consideration. Commissioner Tiernan commented on the congestion and lack of parking in the area and felt that the staff recommendation was appropriate. X X X X X X Motion was voted on and carried. X Item No. 7 and Item No. 8 were heard concurrently because of their relationship. Item #7 Request to establish a Planned Community Develop- AMENDMENT NO. 455 ment Plan and Development Standards for "Civic Plaza" in Newport Center, and the acceptance of an environmental document. APPROVED Location: Portion of Block 55, Irvine's Subdivision, located on Blocks 700 and 800 in Newport Center, on the southwesterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road between Jamboree Road and Santa Cruz Drive. Zone: P -C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Item #8 Request to subdivide 26 acres t into 3 parcels for RESUB- professional offices, civic and cultural uses in DIVISION accordance with the Planned Community Development fiO. 501 Standards for "Civic Plaza." APPROVED Location: Portion of Block 55, Irvine's rDlTfff-- Subdivision, located on Blocks 700 I' MTY and 800 in Newport Center, on the southwesterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road between Jamboree Road and Santa Cruz Drive. Page 12. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES nib Nnvomhar Pn _ 1Q71; Zone: P -C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Simpson - Steppat, Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan advised of staff's recommendation for approval as outlined in the staff report with the additional amendment to the P -C Text that the actual square footage of the total office buildings be determined after review by the Planning Commission of the traffic study now under way as far as peak hours are concerned. Public hearing was opened in connection with these two items. Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, The • Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommend- ations. He advised that the project conformed to the City's General Plan and would be constructed in three phases. He reviewed the site plan and the project with the Commission. Ron Hendrickson with the Commercial Division of The Irvine Company appeared before the Commission to comment further on the project. He advised that the height limit was being reduced from that which is presently permitted and commented on the changes in grade on the site. David Emms, 16871 Key West Drive, Huntington Beach Artistic Director of South Coast Repertory, appear- ed before the Commission in support of the develop- ment and felt this was a good location for the type of mixed uses proposed. Doreen Marshall appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Newport Harbor Art Museum in support of the Civic Plaza amendment and resub- division requests and advised that the art museum was prepared to start construction as soon as the various approvals and permits had been obtained. • She commended the planning of Civic Plaza for grouping the cultural facilities and felt it could encourage needed expansion of cultural opportunities for the residents in the harbor area. Page 13. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 T< P P Z N go�cau November 20, 1975 MINUTES INDEX L Ernie Wilson, 3990 Westerly Place, architect for the art museum, appeared before the Commission and presented preliminary plans for review. He also answered questions of the Commission regarding parking, future expansion of the square footage of the art museum and related parking, landscaping and grade separations. Phil Morgan, 1216 E. Balboa Boulevard, Balboa, Chairman of the Library Board of Trustees, appeare in support of the project and the location of the proposed library. Ron Hendrickson appeared before the Commission to answer questions regarding grading and drainage. Environmental Coordinator Foley reviewed experi- mental programs which were being designed to improve the quality of water before it enters into the storm drain system and advised that these should again be reviewed before any final plans were approved. . Dave Neish advised that one of the requirements of the Coastal Commission was that before an appli- cation is accepted by them, studies must be made and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board relative to drainage. Mr. Neish also answer ed questions of the Commission relative to pedes- trian circulation and grading and related paleon- tology policies of the City which will be followed. Planning Commission discussed the assumptions made by the Environmental Impact Report relative to traffic generation during A.M. peak hours by the cultural uses and the restaurant. Bicycle trails were also discussed and it was suggested that a general note be added to the P -C text requiring that pedestrian and bicycle circulation plans be developed for approval by the staff. Wes Pringle, Vice President of Crommelin- Pringle and Associates, appeared before the Commission to answer questions and comment on the concerns relative to internal circulation and inadequate storage lanes for cars both entering and leaving the easterly access point along San Clemente Drive. He felt that the entrance should be re- designed to eliminate this conflict within the parking area. Commissioner Williams commented on the increased pressure that projects of this nature will have Page 14. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO�CAII November 20, 1975 INDEX on the use of the airport. Commissioner Seely commented on the cumulative effect that recently approved and proposed office complexes may have on the airport, the relatively brief discussion in the EIR as to residential uses as an alternative land use, and voiced con - cern with the over - emphasis on developments of an office -type concept. At this point Planning Commission questioned the status of the Interhope project which consisted of <three high -rise buildings containing 245 residen- tial units in the Newport Center area, and Dave Neish of The Irvine Company advised that the . original high -rise concept now cannot work finan- cially and, therefore, plans were being considered to provide for something not as high, covering more ground. However, because of the changes, as well as the need for City and Coastal Commissio approval,'it may be two years or more before beginning construction. In answer to the criteri which would be included in the traffic study pre- • sently being made, Mr. Neish advised that the ultimate build -out of Newport Center was being considered, including all approved and proposed projects. Planning Commission further reviewed and discussed the Environmental Impact Report in order to clarify certain points contained therein. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend Ayes X X X X X X to the City Council that the Environmental Impact Absent X Report be certified; that Planning Commission make the following findings in connection with Amend- ment No. 455: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the proposed project will not be detri- mental to the peace, health, or general wel- fare of people working or residing in the surrounding area. • and recommend to the City Council that Amendment No. 455 establishing the Planned Community Devel- opment Standards for Civic Plaza be approved, subject to the following changes in the text: Page 15. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a s a e.,�... Nnvamhar 9n_ IQ75 MINUTES lunEY 1. Add a footnote to Section.I (3) Statistical Analysis to read as follows: "Final approval of the number of square feet of office use shall be subject to the establis - ment of overall limits on development in New- port Center. These limits shall be establishe in conjunction with the review of additional traffic studies which are currently underway. No building permits shall be issued in Lot 3, nor shall there be any further resubdivision of Lot 3 until such limits are established by the Planning Commission." 2. Amend Section III B (3) Permitted uses to read as follows: "Restaurant subject to site plan review." 3. Amend Section III G "Parking" to add: "Parking for the library and museum shall be based on 3.5 spaces /1,000 square feet of gross . floor area." "Parking for the theater shall be based on 1 space /2.5 seats. An agreement shall be prepared and approved by the City, permitting joint use of adjacent office parking during the evening and weekends. However a minimum of 30 spaces shall be provided for the theater during weekdays." "Final restaurant parking requirements shall be established during site plan review." 4. Add to Section II. General Notes, the follow- ing: "10. That a pedestrian and bicycle trail system be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development." 5. Amend Section III E "Signs" 2.c.1) and 2) as follows: 1) Building Identification is permitted in the form of hedge signing on Newport Center Drive building sites which total 150.feet • or more frontage on Newport Center Drive. Building Identifications signs will be a standard type to be constructed according to criteria furnished by The Irvine Company Page 16. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES oA e.l. November 20. 1975 ,uncv in effect on the effective date of this ordinance. 2) For buildings fronting on Santa Cruz, San Clemente, and Santa Barbara, Building Identification signing shall be permitted within the same limitations as those stated under "Tenant Identification, Regular Tenant" of the Newport Center Signing Criteria of The Irvine Company in effect on the effective date of this ordinance. that Planning-Commission make the following findings in connection with Resubdivision No. 501: 1. That the proposed map and development shown thereon is consistent with applicable general and specific plans and the Planned Community Text. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in the tentative map. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development as set forth in the Planned Community Text. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substan- tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision of the, proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large,. for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Page 17. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH <pj0 Z Z u s.,•.... NnvamhPr 20. 1975 MINUTES tunny Section 1300) of the Water Code. and forward the resubdivision request to the City Council recommending that Resubdivision No. 501 be approved subject to the following conditions: 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 sidewalk be constructed and street trees be planted in the northerly parkway of San Clemente Drive. 4. That access to the perimeter public streets be taken as shown on the site plan contained in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District Regulations being considered under Amendment No. 455; and that vehicular access rights be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach as follows: • a. All vehicular access rights to San Joaquin Hills Road, except for one location at approximately the midpoint of the frontage; b. All vehicular access rights to Santa Cruz Drive; c. All vehicular access rights to Santa Barbara Drive, except at the existing pri- vate drive adjacent to the Fire Station. The actual dedication of the vehicular access rights may be deferred until a parcel map is filed for the further subdivision of Parcel 3. 5. That all public utility.easements to be dedi- cated to the City of Newport Beach have a minimum width of ten feet, with.greater widths provided where required by the Public Works Department. 6. That the water capital improvement acreage fees be paid. 7. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir • equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. Page 18. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RAbCA, November 20, 1975 MINUTES INDEX 8. That standard subdivision agreements with accompanying security be provided to guarantee completion of the public improvements if it is desired to have building permits issued or the parcel map recorded prior to the completion of the required public improvements. 9. Onsite fire hydrant locations shall be approve by the,Newport Beach Public Works and Fire Departments. 10. Fire Department equipment access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 11. Building addressing shall conform to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code - Section 13.12. 020. 12. That cross easements be established where necessary to ensure adequate circulation within the parking areas. 13. That the grading plan shall include a complete • plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants and shall be approved by the Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Commissioner Seely voiced concern with the fact that so many office complexes were being planned and approved for the area and felt that the cultural center was a wonderful thing but was concerned that the office development was being considered under the same application. He requested that the long range office demand market study referred to in the environmental impact report be furnished to the Planning Commission at the time the information pertaining to the total build -out of Newport Center was obtained for reference in the consideration of future projects of this nature. Planning Commission recessed at 10:20 P.M. and reconvened at 10:30 P.M. Page 19. Mo ion A Ab ent 0 Motion Ayes Absent COMMISSIONERS T r = T < Z P P 7 Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 20. 1975 MINUTES ,uncv Item #9 Request to amend a portion of Districting.Map No. AMENDMENT 37 from the "U" District to the "P -C" District, N and to establish a Planned Community Development Plan and Development Standards for "Holiday CONT. TO Harbor," and the acceptance of an environmental DEC. document. Location: Portion of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 800 -900 East Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, westerly of Jamboree Road, adjacent to Newport Dunes. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant X Planning Commission continued this matter to the X X X X X X meeting of December 4, 1975. X Item #10 Request to subdivide 16.14 ± acres into 6 parcels RESUB- for commercial development in accordance with the DIVISION Planned Community Development Standards for N_5 $— "Holiday Harbor." CONT. TO DEC. 4 Location:: Portion of Blocks 55 and 9.4, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 800 -900 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast High - way, westerly of Jamboree Road, adjacent to Newport Dunes. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same.as Applicant Engineer: Simpson - Steppat, Newport Beach Planning Commission continued this matter to the X X X X X meeting of December 4, 1975. X Page 20. 0 0 COMMISSIONERS N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NovPmhnr 9n lo7g, MINUTES kuner Items No. 11 and No. 12 were heard concurrently because of their relationship. Item #11 Request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. AMENDMENT 53 and No. 64 from the "U" District to the "P -C" N7 District, and to establish a Planned Community Development Plan and Development Standards for CONT. TO "Broadmoor- Pacific View," and the.acceptance..of DEC. an environmental document. Location: Portion of Blocks 92 and 97, Irvine's Subdivision, located on the southeasterly side of New MacArthur Boulevard, adjacent to the Big Canyon Reservoir, in Harbor View Hills. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: Broadmoor Homes, Inc., Tustin Owner: Pacific View Memorial Park., Newport Beach Item #12 Request to subdivide 50.0 acres for single family TENTATIVE residential development in accordance with the MAPMAPTRTC—T NOS Planned Community Development Standards for "Broadmoor- Pacific View." CONT. TO Location: Portion of Blocks 92 and 97, DrC—.ZF-- Irvine's Subdivision, located on the southeasterly side of New Mac Arthur Boulevard, adjacent to the Big Canyon Reservoir, in Harbor View Hills. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: Broadmoor Homes, Inc., Tustin Owner: Pacific View Memorial Park, Newport Beach Engineer: Raub, Bein, Frost and Assoc., Newport Beach Page 21. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i A P Z N MINUTES N n v P m h P r 20. 1975 INDEX Community Development Director Hogan advised that the density has been computed in accordance with the amendment to the General Plan. There were 46.8 buildable acres and the density was 3.57 dwelling units per buildable acre for a total of 167 dwelling units, therefore, the proposed development would be in the low- density residential classification. Mr. Hogan advised of staff's concern with the grading which had been proposed and its conflict with the General Plan Policies relative to hillside development. There were, however, some merits to the proposed.grading plan and, therefore, the staff requested that direction and guidance be given by the Planning Commission relative to the concept proposed. Planning Commission briefly discussed the possib- ility of alternative plans which could be develop - ed. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. • Larry Lizotte, representing Broadmoor Homes, appeared before the Commission and presented an agenda of their presentation and introduced the gentlemen .involved in the project. Mr. Lizotte advised that many plans had been considered and it was felt this was the best plan because it will consist of detached single family housing. Two scale models were presented for review, one indicating the present land form and one indicat- ing how the land would appear after it had been graded. Mr. Lizotte advised that the General Plan would allow 175 units, whereas, their plan consist Ed of 167 units; that the plans had been reviewed by the surrounding homeowners associations and their support was expressed; that no houses would have access on the collector streets; recreational facilities were planned for the development; that a community association would be formed in order to provide for maintenance of the slopes and recreational facilities; there would be pedestrian walkways to the recreation facilities;.the natural canyon would be preserved and would be offered for dedication to the City; that the grading would. be balanced,i.e., there would be no export or import of grading material; that the slopes had been designed with care; and the streets were • being designated as private streets. He requested that the Commission consider this concept and grant their approval. Page 22. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 20. 1975 Iunr.v John Ballew, Architect with Morris & Lohrbach, appeared before the Commission to comment on the site plan and architecture. He felt there was preservation of land form, preservation of views of adjacent properties, that consideration was given to the impact of noise on the development from MacArthur Boulevard and that much considera- tion was given to the aesthetics and architecture of the entire development. He also commented on the building materials to be used, street- scaping, and recreation areas. Bob Bein. representing Broadmoor Homes as the Civil Engineer on the project, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the two models of..the project in detail. He commented on the change of land form and the market demand for padded lots with a view. He advised that during the General Plan amendment hearings concerning this particular property, all the proposals and alternate develop- ment plans were for padded lots. He commented on the objective of the plan for single family, detached housing, with a zero side yard setback . on one side; the objectives to maximize views and provide for privacy and security; and efforts to minimize the land alterations from the adjacent landowners point of view. He commented on their attempt to.minimize the slopes within the develop- ment through the use of an undulating slope arrangement whereby the various slope ratios were anywhere from 131-to -1 to.5 -to -1 with all slopes being round at all intersections. He advised that the slopes would be maintained by the community association, walkways would be provided on the larger slopes, the need for a block wall. had been eliminated along MacArthur Boulevard and the various slopes were not as high as those in other developments on hillsides. Planning Commission voiced concern with the change of the land form proposed as it related to the General Plan Policies, and Mr. Bein advised this property contained a very gentle slope and felt it did not lend itself to the same strict sense . of policy as that of other property with much. greater slopes. He pointed out that although the grading would create pads, the slopes were of different heights and degrees and the ultimate development would create a natural effect without following the original contour of the land. Page 23. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m Z ; ; p p < RA CALI November 20 1975 MINUTES INDEX , Richard B. Smith, President of Broadmoor Homes, appeared before the Commission and commented on other developments with padded home sites in Newport Beach. He felt that the techniques employ ed on this development would encourage open space and enhance views both to and from the property and requested that the Planning Commission give favorable consideration to this request. Planning Commission discussed the grading plan and the concept which had been presented. Commissioner Seely felt that the grading as pro - posed was a good plan, however, he voiced some concern with the overall effect of the development after completion and the possibility of viewing a wall of houses with no relief through open space. He questioned the possibility of creating addi- tional visual relief to the site. Commissioner Parker commented on the policies and the mandate of the City to provide standards, controls and ordinances which would help implement • the policies set forth. In the absence of firm City ordinances, he felt that the plan as presente would work and as stated in Policy G would enhance the natural character of the area and as stated in Policy E they have encouraged the use of open space even though they have not used the natural contour construction. Recognizing these views, plus the economics involved engaging in specula - Motion X tive grading plans, motion was made that the Planning Commission accept the grading concept as proposed. Commissioner Heather advised that she had reviewed the models and grading plans prior to this meeting and felt that the people working on the project had done an outstanding job to make this an interesting development and maximize the view potential. Commissioner Beckley commented on the alternatives which would require retaining wal.ls or beam and post.construction and the added cost to the purchaser if the project had to follow the natural contour of the land thereby creating less housing and the possibility of custom lots.. • Commissioner Tiernan questioned whether or not the General Plan should be amended concerning hillside construction. Page 24. Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Il 0 COMMISSIONERS a Z b £ vp N 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NovPmhPr 9n_ 1Q75 MINUTES lunev Commissioner Williams commented on the interpreta- tion of the policies and the improved grading and construction now taking place in hillside develop- ment and felt that although the proposed plan may not conform to the natural contour, it was a step forward from what has been done in the past. X X X X X X Following discussion, the motion to accept the X grading concept as proposed was voted on and carried. X Motion was then made that the Planning Commission X X X X X X continue the public hearing to the meeting of X December,4, 1975 for the purpose of obtaining A. full analysis of the project from the staff. Item #13 Request to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 9063 FINAL subdividing 33.702 acres into three lots for MAP commercial development in "Koll Center Newport.." TR,CT DWI Location: A portion of Lot 5 and Lot 6, Tract 7953, located on property bounded APPROVED by Birch Street, Von Karman Avenue COO -NDI- and MacArthur Boulevard in "Koll TIONALLY Center Newport." Zone: P -C Applicant: Koll Center Newport Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Raub, Bein, Frost and Associates, Newport Beach In connection with Condition No. 2 of the tentativ . map which required that provision be made for the maintenance of the parking lots, Assistant City Attorney Coffin advised that he had reviewed the C.C.& R.s already existing on the tract and they provide adequate control for maintenance of the parking lots, therefore, Condition No. 2 has been met. Robert Bein, representing Koll Center Newport, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommended condition. Page 25. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A 90 Z 0 A P A a November 20, 1975 MINUTES aunFY Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Final Map of Tract 9063, subject to the following.condition: Motion X 1. That all applicable conditions of approval Ayes X X X X X for the tentative map for Tract No. 9063 Absent X shall be fulfilled. .ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 937, Ayes X X X X setting a public hearing for December 18, 1975, to , Absen X consider the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan and to consider a change of zone from C -1 -H to R -1 on the southerly portion of Lot "C" of Tract 919. Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 938, Ayes X X X X X N setting a public hearing for December 18, 1975, to Absent X consider an amendment to Section 20.08.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to include senior citizen housing as an allowable use in any distric , subject to the securing of a Use Permit in each case. Motion N Commissioner Tiernan.requested and received.. Ayes X X X X permission to be excused from the meeting of Abstain X December 4, 1975. Absent X Motion X There being no further business, motion was made. Ayes X X X X X X to adjourn the meeting. Time: 12:30 A.M. Absent X /dliJ JAMES P S ecretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • Page 26.