Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/1978COMMISSIONERS 0 ROLL CALL Present x x Motion All Ayes ion A 1 Ayes Motion All Ayes i M MINUTES City of Newport Beach Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: December 7, 1978 INDEX EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. Y. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Bill Dye, Assistant City Engineer Jim Evans, Grading Engineer Minutes Written By: Joan Lord Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 19, 1978 were approved as corrected. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 9, 1978 were approved as corrected. Request to consider an amendment to Section ME 20.10.025 (B) of the Newport Beach.Municipal Code 0. pertaining to fireplace and chimney encroachments. P by: City of Newport Beach Staff stated that this Amendment will make the zoning ordinance consistent with the building code. Public hearing was opened on this item. There being no one wishing to appear and be heard on thi item, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 522 to Section 20.10.025 (B) to read as follows: B. FIREPLACES AND CHIMNEYS. Fireplaces and chimneys not to exceed 8 feet in width may encroach to a distance of 2 feet into any - 1 - E COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach u ROLL CALL December 7, 1978 required front yard setback of 10 feet or more in any "R" District; provided, that the fireplace and chimney must be located not less than 5 feet from any side yard setback line. Fireplaces and chimneys not to exceed 9 feet in width may encroach to a maximum distance of 2k feet from any side yard setback line provided that such. encroachment must be at least 2 feet from any side property .line. INDEX Motion X Because the applicant had not yet arrived, motion All Ayes was made to continue Item #2 until later in the evening. Item #3 Request to permit the construction of a two story USE . building that may include a mixture of retail, office and light manufacturing uses on a site in PERMIT NO.1889 the Recreation and Marine Commercial area of the Mariners Mile Specific .Plan Area, and the review CONT'D of an Initial Study. Existing uses along the West TO Coast Highway frontage of the property are pro- JAN. 4, posed to remain in conjunction with the proposed 1979 development. Location: A portion of Lot H, Tract No. 919, located at 2701 -2703 West Coast High- way, on the southerly.side of West Coast Highway, between Riverside Avenue and Tustin on Mariners' Mile. Zone: Specific Plan Area No. 5 Applicant: Edward B. Robinson, Newport Beach Owners: Elmer John Larson, Newport; and Gwendolyn I. Snyder, Balboa Island There was a question from the Planning Commission regarding the finding in the staff report on this item which states, "3. That the implementation of the project would jeopardize the. ability of the . City of Newport Beach to prepare a Local Coastal - 2 - COMMISSIONERS R 9v�'1Aj, 9 �p9 �2b(�O City of Newport Beach Ileremher 7. 1978 ROLL, CALL Plan - Land Use Plan in conformance with the goal of the Coastal Act of 1976 ". Staff stated that t Local Coastal Plan is under preparation at the present time and any final decision on the devel( ment within the coastal area fixes that particuli location as to its development. Consequently, ar thing that is done that is a final building coulc to some extent hinder the preparation of the plar for that particular area. Public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Ted Robinson of Robinson Development Co., 363 San Miguel Dr., Newport Beach, appeared befog the Planning Commission. He stated that he had read the staff report and, after conversations with the City planning staff, Coastal Commission, and Mr. Larson, one of the owners, he was working on an alternative plan. He hoped that this alter native plan could be presented at a Planning Com- mission study session as soon as possible, and then reheard. Mel Aukman, 461 Santa Ana Ave., Newport Beach, representing the United. Fishermen's Organization of Southern California appeared before the Plann Commission. It is the opinion of that organizat that tearing down Larson's shipyard and replacin it with office buildings is in violation of Publ Resources Code 30234, and therefore they are opp ed to the granting of Use Permit No. 1889. Motion X Motion was made to continue public hearing on Us, All Ayes Permit No. 1889 until January 4, 1979, with the understanding that it would be on the study sess agenda on December 21, 1978. Motion X After some discussion between the members of the Ayes X X X XX X Planning Commission regarding.changing the date Noes X of the next meeting to December 28, 1978, motion was made to leave the meeting date as scheduled, December 21, 1978. - 3 - MINUTES ip it iy •e i o 3c r � )s- io INDEX COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes City of Newport Beach December 7, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Request to permit a drive -up teller facility in con USE junction with a Golden State Sanwa Bank complex in PER an office building (under construction) in Newport NO. Place. Location: Parcel 2, Parcel Map 63 -27 (Resubdivi- sion No. 458) located at 4041 Mac - Arthur.Boulevard and 1300 Dove Street, on the southerly side of Newport Place Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Dove Street in Newport Place. Zone: P -C Applicant: Bayshore, /Olmstead,, Newport Beach Owner: Dao.n Corporation, Newport Beach Staff recommended that Condition 2 be deleted from the staff report on this item. Public hearing was opened in connection with Use Permit No. 1888. Doug Simpson, 1601 Dove Street, Newport Beach, of Bayshore /Olmstead, the applicant, appeared. He stated that Conditions 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the staff report are acceptable to them. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. That the proposed development is in conform - ance with the General Plan and the Planned Community Development Standards of Newport Place and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate offstreet parking spaces will be provided for the.proposed development. 3. Adequate provisions for traffic circulation are being made for the drive -in teller facility. 4 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach • December 7, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community Devel- opment Standards. Request to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach • I I I I I I I (Zone: R -1 and. -R -2 - 5 - 4. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1888 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the genera welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1888 subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan and ele- vations, except as noted in Condition of Approval No. 2 below. 2. That the parking layout, including the depth of the proposed compact spaces on the site, shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer 3. That storage for nine vehicles, including the three vehicles being served, shall.be provided in the reservoir lanes at all times. 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community Devel- opment Standards. Request to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach • I I I I I I I (Zone: R -1 and. -R -2 - 5 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \a� \9 \o \,% \ \\ City of Newport Beach • ROLL CALL December 7, 1978 INDEX Staff suggested that if the Planning Commission desires to amend this ordinance to establish some other height limit on the bluff side of Kings Road, that it be adopted in a way that it would create an average between two adjacent houses for a new struc ture or for an addition to.the structure between those two houses. Another proposal would be to establish some exact height above the curb that would be relative to the development existing in th neightborhood as it is today. A survey of the ele- vations in this area showed heights above the curb of from 4 feet to a little above 16 feet. In answe to a question from one of the Commissioners, staff stated that this amendment could be written in such a way that it would apply to only one side of the street. A further proposal was suggested by a member of the Planning Commission.. A drawing on the blackboard illustrated the feasibility of setting a height . limit of .12 feet above the curb line for the aver -, age of each .roof element and 15 feet above the curb line for a maximum. Public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Les Miller, 128 Kings Place, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposi- tion to reducing height limits on the bluff side of Kings Road. It was his opinion that this action would take away the rights of the residents on the bluff side of the street to the advantage of the people on the other side. He felt that the public view was already preserved by the City owned Cliff Haven Park, and the City should not legislate to protect views from private residences. Barbara Roy, 1410 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared to oppose the construction of a two -story house on the bluff side.. Since the area has no CC &Rs.or architectural standards committee, she fel that some control was necessary to preserve the established uniform roof line so that the character of the street and the view.would not be changed. I I I I (Bill Mader, 1601 Kings Road, Newport Beach, an . employee of The Irvine Company, stated that he had been requested to research any architectural wde COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach 'a December 7, 1978 ROLL CALL restrictions placed on leasehold land on Kings Road and Kings Place. He stated that it was the intent of The Irvine Company's design guidelines to preserve views from the higher placed properti from those located on the lower properties. Alice. Pobog, 1400 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared and reviewed the historical background the Kings Road -Kings Place property. She felt t the Newport Beach building restrictions are not adequate.for the unique bluffs area, and would It to return to the original plan of one -story heig above curb on the bluff side and two -story height allowable on the upper side. Holly Henderson, 1110 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared and disagreed with the staff report rege ing,the number of locations from which the public could enjoy the view. She felt it was within the province and duty of good planning to preserve tt character of the neighborhood. She urged adoptic of an amendment setting height limits on the bluff side to the maximum of 15 feet above the curb lir Joan Petty, 1720 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appei ed in favor of reducing the height limit and pre- serving the existing roof lines on the bluff sidf She submitted to the Planning Commission petitior containing the signatures of 61 more residents, addition to the 85 already submitted,.w.ho wish tc have the present uniform roof line on the bluff side of Kings Road maintained. These petitions were presented on behalf of Mrs. Edwina Nelson wl had coordinated the efforts of signature gatheril In answer to the concern that this would be spot zoning, it was her view that, in the absence of. CC &Rs, this would give them the protection other bluff areas enjoy. Raymond Smith, 204 Kings Place, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned whether the proposed amendment was wi in the police power of the City government. He referred to various correspondence from the staf and City Attorney's office stating that action that is taken must protect the public interest generally, and that action must be uniform. - 7 - MINUTES esl of ha k ht r e ,n. `f ie. Is n I Io Ig. th F INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \% \sv City of Newport Beach • ROLL CALL 0 Decembe Mr. Mader appeared again before the Planning Com- mission to quote The Irvine Company guidelines.unde their leasehold agreements.. They were, "refer to lease for frontyard setback, 10 feet on bluff lots, 20 feet on upper and non -bluff lots; one -story on bluff lots, two -story O.K. on upper side; no white foofs". Tom Lally, 108 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared. and stated that there was no view over the homes on the bluff side except in one or two cases. Bob Cooper, 418 Signal Road, Newport Beach, repre- senting the Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he has no personal involvement in the contro= versy over roof heights. His interest was in the well- spoken residents who had appeared. He intend to ask them to serve on association committees in the future. Additional residents appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed views similar to those . presented earlier in the public hearing. Those in favor of an ordinance setting a height limit on the bluff side were: Charles Palmer, 1701 Kings Road; Tom Henderson, 1110 Kings Road; Roland Bertonneau, 1210 Kings Road; Phil Petty, 1720 Kings Road; Dr. Ralph Anderson, 1500 Kings Road; Ruby Bertonneau, 1210 Kings Road; Peggy Shedd, 1520 Kings Road, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Elizabeth H. Cox, 1110 Kings Road; Ansell Hill, 1511 Kings Road; and Richard Handy, 810 Kings Road. Those speaking in opposition to a height limitation sere: Ralph Shutt, 212 Kings Place; Robert Cecka, 1401 Kings Road; and Jerry Greer, 208 Kings Place, dho submitted letters from Elizabeth H. Cox, 1100 Kings Road; Lynne De Le Loze, 220 Kings Place; and Eloise and Stan Henline, 230 Kings Place, who were opposed. here being no others desiring to appear and be eard on this item, the public hearing was closed. - 8 - INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach Deremher 7. 1972 ROLL CALL The audience was informed that the Planning Com- mission will be considering height and bulk of building standards in Corona del Mar at its next meeting, and perhaps some would wish to attend. Discussion between members of the Planning Commis Sion covered the following points: 1) Reluctance to deviate from the City's general height ordinance. This appears to be a matter that involves private views only, since public views are already taken care of. 2) Sympathy with the inland residents who understood.that the view was regulated, concern f the bluff side residents who "have a right to deve op their property, and recognition of the fact th the Planning Commission has the right to regulate in the public interest. 3) Need to limit the average height of the • roof, rather than setting a maximum only, to dis- courage flat topped roofs and encourage good arch tecture. 4) This problem seen as a dispute between residents of the neighborhood and not a matter of preserving the public view or public right. 5) Probability that limited existing views would have been lost if construction had taken pl under a height limitation ordinance such as that being considered, with a suggestion that no limit be established. 6) Advisability of continuing the original Irvine Company concept of grading on two differen levels. 7) Height limitation of 16.23 feet above th curb line on the bluff side would permit a two - story structure and the alternate proposal of 15 feet maximum would not. - 9 -. MINUTES or t- at i- ac I' INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach • \\\\\x December 7, 1978 ROLL CALL I I I r Motion X Motion was made that structures on the bluff side Ayes X X X X of Kings Road and Kings Place which were in exist - Nees X X X ence or under construction may be changed, provided that said change does not result in.a roof height above curb which is higher than 16.23 feet and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subject to the same criteria. • Staff stated that this will be an amendment to the ordinance as it exists. There will be another public hearing before the City Council before it becomes final. The Chairman answered a question from the audience, that the motion is relevant only to this particular area. Initiated by: City of Newport Beach Staff stated that any amendments to the.grading code are go.ing to have effects which may not be apparent in the amendment itself, and he hoped that the information to be presented by Jim Evans, Grading Engineer, and other staff members would make it clear what the results would be before a final recommendation on any amendments was sent to the City Council. He also pointed out that the new grading code has only been in effect since Septem- ber 14, 1978, and has not yet been tested on any major projects. He stated that, in the staff's opinion, this is a carefully drawn code which is very restrictive in its requirements. Staff answered the following questions from the Commissioners: - 10 - INDEX Item #5 PROPOSED AMEND- MENTS TO GRADING CODE Ilya COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach December 7, 1978 ROLL CALL 1) What is the effect of a restriction on grading a natural slope steeper than 20 %? Staff replied that it depends on the definition o the term "natural slope ". If that term was defin as one which is composed of natural materials it would lead to restrictions on probably 60% of the City, because there are so many lots which are excavated where the slopes behind them or in fron of them are in naturally deposited materials. A diagram in the staff report.shows areas of the Ci which would be affected by a 20% restriction bas on a definition of "natural slope" in which a da was chosen, and any slope that was a natural slop on that date and undisturbed by grading would be from that time forward classified as a natural slope. Staff described possible effects of this restric- tion beyond preventing the development of a parti • u ular area.of land.: denying access ,to a lot or s division because the grade was steeper than 20 %; prohibiting construction of sidewalks and drains facilities on slopes greater than 20 %; and preve ing the repair of eroded slopes greater than 20% or corrective grading on such slopes to prevent a MINUTES ed ty ed to e c- ub- ge nt- i e INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach 0 ROLL CALL E E 4) What brought about our consideration of changes to the present ordinance? This was started at the direction of the City Council. Their concern was to do everything pos- sible to prevent eros.ion and siltation going into the bay and to prevent some of the practices in grading that occurred over past years. In line with this, they have asked the staff for a report, due in January, comparing all of the grading and bluffs control regulations that are in existence or under consideration. 5) Are we premature in considering this? We may be, but at the City Council's direction, the Planning Commission is now asked to consider this and conduct a.public hearing. 6) Are there any provisions in the existing ordinance that you foresee will not be workable? There have not been any.projects with slopes under- taken since the ordinance was adopted in September, so it has not.been tested. There does not appear to be anything that needs to be changed. A possibl addition to the existing ordinance might be provi- sion for a penalty for not installing erosion devices. Staff commented that the new ordinance contains the ability to regulate drainage control devices on areas that are not under.development, not before present in the ordinance. It was suggested by mission that a study sions be set up to g o ties of the proposed there appeared to be the ordinance at this was presented in the a member of the Planning Com- session or small informal ses- further into the technicali- amendments. Others felt that no reason to consider amending time unless some new evidence public hearing. Public hearing was opened in connection with this item. - 12 - INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach 0 ROIL CALL 0 9 December 7, 1978 Don Simpson, 1824 Port Margate, Newport Beach, a private civil engineer, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission. In his opinion the present ordi- nance is very adequate in regulating stability of slopes. The reports and recommendations from licensed soils engineers and geologists required by the ordinance identify problem areas and set forth mitigation measures. A more restrictive ordinance could limit these professionals in their recommendations. A fault that he found in the 20% restriction is that it does not define the length of the 20% section. He stated that the present ordinance is more restrictive than that of any agency in the watershed. He cited Big Canyon as an example of the need for erosion control in undeveloped areas, stating that there is now less siltation than in its natural state. The require- ment that all erosion products be contained on the area which is being graded could .lead to great expense in hauling water away. A. E. Van Dell, 2716 Wendover, Corona del Mar, Past, President and Director of.the Orange County Chapter of California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, appeared before the.Planning Commission to accompany a letter from that organ.ization. Thei position, is that this ordinance is more restrictive than the model ordinance that has recently come out in the state erosion control manual or that of any agency in the watershed, and they urge that the present code be allowed to function until it can be shown that it will not perform the job for which it was assigned. Mr. VanDell is also design engineer for Sea Island and said that this project could not be accomplishable under the 20% restriction. Herb Tobin, 6 Rue Chateau, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Building Industry Association, and Canyon Mesa Home- owners Association. He stated that the major silt- ation is coming out of San Diego Creek and Santa Ana /Delhi Channel and that a siltation debris basin is needed. Repairs to the slopes in Big Canyon would be impossible under the 20% restriction. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. - 13 - INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach aa� X N Nxtlrt December 7. 1478 ROLL CALL CAL- TRANS WEST n" PR PERTY , ;o Motion MEND TO REDESIG- x NATE :he Motion was made to advise the City Council that tl Ayes X X K K X X newly approved grading code appears to be adequat( Noes X and changes should not be made until the ordinancf has been properly tested. The Planning Commissior suggests that this matter be filed. The motion was based on the following consideratic the new ordinance has not been tested and it shoul be tested; staff and outside engineers consider ti present ordinance adequate, with the possible exce tion that it needs more enforcement capability; ti ordinance is the most restrictive in the watersher and complies with the model ordinance used in the state guidelines. The original motion suggested that this matter be filed until at least a year has passed. After di! cussion the maker of the motion.eliminated the tic factor from his motion with the understanding that the staff inform the Planning Commission,if any, provisions appear to need change.. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Motion K Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1028 All Ayes setting a public hearing for January 4, 1979, on review of Residential Development Standards for R- Districts in Corona del Mar. Motion x Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1029 All Ayes setting a public hearing for January 4, 1979, on " revision of definition of terms "Family" and "Dwe' ling Unit ". taff asked that the Commissioners consider a let" ritten from the Planning Commission to the City ouncil regarding the General Plan designation of ALTRA.NS West property. If the Planning Commissic fished to forward this letter to the City Council, motion should be made instructing the Chairman " Jo so. Motion X otion was made that the Planning Commission send A *Ayes he letter to the City Council recommending that i - 14 - MINUTES INDEX ie ins d ie 'p- re ie 1 R -1028 :he R -1029 ter CAL- TRANS WEST n" PR PERTY , ;o RECOM =. MEND TO REDESIG- NATE :he COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach 0 December 7, 1978 ROLL CALL I Jill III MINUTES CALTRANS West property be designated as open space and, in addition, include in any correspondence with the State. regarding this property, reasons why the Planning Commission believes it would be a good park, using their criteria such as statewide value, etc. Discussion between members of the Planning Commissio and the staff clarified the distinction between the issue at the present time and the issue several months ago when it was previously discussed. At th time the property was designated for some low =den- sity residential development the City did not have the funds for acquisition of open space. Since tha time Proposition 3 was.passed by the voters, which specifically enables a State agency to buy land tha complies with the plans of the City for the purpose that are set forth in the proposition, one of them being open space. If the State chose not to pur- chase a site such as this the City would be request ed to reconsider the zoning in the General Plan. • This would answer the concern that the value of the site would be reduced by.designating it open space. Margo Skilling, West Newport, appeared before the Planning Commission and urged that the City Council be informed that the designation of the CALTRANS parcel as low- density housing was done prior to the passage of Proposition 3 and that the Planning Com- mission concurs that open space is a preferable zoning. Also,. she hoped that the Planning Commis- sion would state its support of City Council's . efforts on implementation of Proposition 3 and con- sider a zone change on all three properties within the scope of Proposition 3, those being the P.E. right -of -way, CALTRANS East and CALTRANS West. he Chairman brought up a situation which had come o his. attention regarding a letter written to the oastal Commission by the Local Coastal Plan Advi- ory Committee concerning the proposed office build ng (UP -1868) on the Rhine Channel behind the paghetti Factory. It was felt that there needed t e -some clarification as to what was considered whe - 15 - INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach �� mA • 1 December 7, 1978. ROLL CALL the item was approved by the Planning Commission. Staff stated that there had been two hearings at least on this matter; at one hearing there were some concerns for the parking spaces and access ti the bay. The plans were revised and brought back for a second hearing where the parking layout was revised, access to the bay was improved, and bulk of the structures reduced. Since this is the first time the Planning Commiss has been involved with the actions of the newly formed. Local Coastal Plan Advisory Committee, it i felt that, in this case, the Coastal Commission should be advised of the Planning Commission's coi siderations in approving this project, particular because of the time element of the Coastal Commis• sion's meeting on January 11, 1978, and because tl letter will become part of the Coastal Commission record. In general it was agreed that some better under- • standing should be established with the Local Coastal Plan Advisory Committee concerning letter: to outside agencies, which normally come from the Mayor with the approval of the.City Council. It was also hoped that once the Committee has its program:develo.ped, an action of questioning a pro, ect which has already been approved by the Plan- ning Commission could be circumvented, and approv+ of a project would not be subject to still anothe set of restrictions. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission auth Ayes X X X X ize the Chairman to send a letter to the Coastal Abstain X X Commission stating that in considering this proje the Planning Commission did consider public acces to be bay, parking, and the need for provision of boat repair facilities in the harbor; and followii that and other pertinent considerations did appro the project. Motion X There being.no further.business, Planning Commis - All Ayes sion adjourned at 11:15 P. . 4KS 4,Sae4c_r • GEORG e t a r City o Newport Beach Planning Commission - 16 _ MINUTES io Na n- ly ne J- a1 c s n ve INDEX