The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/16/1976COMMISSIONERS Po $gyp � SG 0 C s 16�$y < n IDOLL CALL Present Motion All Ayes 0 Motion All Ayes ity of Newport Beach egular Planning Commission Meeting lace: City Council Chambers ime: 7:00 P.M. ate: December 16. 1976 XXXXXXx EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Commu Hugh Coffin, Assis Benjamin B. Nolan, STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, William R. Foley, Shirley Harbeck, S X Minutes of the Reg were approved as w Request the approv 20.801 acres into for landscaping an site for condomini Location: Port Subd Hosp Supe Coma Zone: P -C Applicant: Newr Owner: Same Engineer: Tour X Planning Commissic meeting of January Page city Development Director Cant City Attorney City Engineer Assistant Director - Planning Environmental Coordinator 2cretary MINUTES ular Meeting of December 2, 1976 ritten. al of a Final Map to subdivide ten building sites, four lots d parking, and one model complex um development. ion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's ivision, located south of ital Road and southeasterly.of rior Avenue in the Planned unity of Versailles -on- the -Bluff ort View, Inc., Newport Beach as Applicant s Corporation, Santa Ana n continued this matter to the 6, 1977. 1. INDEX Item #1 FINAL MP TRACT 8336 CONT. TO JAN. 6 COMMISSIONERS City } M \9w \v \a\��\y� \SG\s�\ City Vf Newport Beach MINUTES MOLL CALL December 16, 1976 Request to establish grade for the purpose of measuring height. UVOEX Item #2 HEIGHT OF GRADE Location: Portion of Lot 104, Tract 300, APPROVED located at 2310 Tustin Avenue, on the easterly side of Tustin Avenue approximately 106 feet north of Lake Park Lane on Cherry Lake. Zone: R-1 Applicant: James W. Davies Owner: Same as Applicant Discussion was opened in connection with this matter. . James Davies, 5 Montanas Norte, Irvine, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report. He answered questions of the Commission and advised that the request had been discussed with the Kellys, the owners of the adjacent property who are most affected by this change, and they had no objections. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the discussion was closed. Motion x Motion was made that Planning Commission make the All Ayes finding that the proposed change meets the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02 and.that the unique character and scale approve the change Beach changein gradeias preserved; and app requested. Item #3 Request to create two parcels of land for single RESUB- family residential development where three lots NO 535r now exist. • Location: Lots 80, 81 and 82, Tract No. 7386, APPROVEI located at 1, 3, and 5 Rocky Point C ND - Drive, on the northwesterly corner TI NALL of Rocky Point Drive and Goleta Point Drive in Spyglass Hill. Page 2. COMMISSIONERS City of Newport -Beach MINUTES R• y'y�O� S ;Cl . December 16, 1976 ROLL CALL Zone: P -C Applicants: Dr. David B. Kagnoff and Dr. Chon< Corona del Mar Owners: Same as Applicants Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Meg Public hearing was opened in connection with th, matter. Dr. David Kagnoff, 59 Montecito Drive, and Dr. Chong, applicants, appeared before the Commissic and concurred with the staff report and recommel ations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. lotion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make tl All Ayes following findings: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the propo subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for th type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for th proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause sub- stantial environmental damage or substantia and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or th habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cau serious public health problems. lo 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict wit any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, proper within the proposed subdivision. Page 3. INDEX I, a S In Id- ie 11 of se h ty COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach s°t December 16, 1976 MOLL CALL 8. That the discharge of waste from the propose subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribe by a California Regional Water Quality Contr Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing wit Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve Resubdivision No. 535, subject to 0 following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all public improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public World Department. . 3. That all applicable conditions of approval for Tract No. 7386 be fulfilled (i.e., strec trees, etc.). Request to change the existing nonconforming usl of The Factory so as to permit professional off' uses and occasional catered banquets on the site where retail and specialty shops now exist in tl M -1 District. Location: Lots 12 and 13, Block 331, Lancaste Addition, located at 425 - 30th Street, on the northerly side of 30th Street between Newport Boule vard and Villa Way in Cannery Villa Zone: M -1 Applicant: Richard Lee Lawrence, Newport Bea Owner: Same as Applicant Public hearing was opened in connection with th matter which was continued from the meeting of December 2, 1976. Commissioners Cokas and Frederickson were absent from that meeting, • however,they have reviewed the tape from the meeting and are, therefore, eligible to partici pate in the deliberation of this continued hear Page 4. MINUTES IIN0EX d d of h e .s �t ice ie r' ge. :h is inc Item #4 USE PERMIT N0. 1809 APPROVED CONDI- TIO LLY COMMISSIONERS 0\0 . 2 City of Newport Beach December 16, 1976 POLL. CALL Richard Lawrence, 505 - 29th Street, appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter. He commented on the rental status of Thi Factory; the proposal to reduce the intensity of uses; and concurred with the staff report recom- mending approval. He also advised he had not been able to secure parking as required for the banquet use. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X In view of the discussion at the previous hearin, and the applicant's inability to obtain any furtl parking, motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 1809. Commissioner Frederickson commented that the applicant had done as much as he could relative to the matter of parking and was trying to compl, • with the spirit of the ordinance. He felt that the conditions recommended in the staff report would provide the necessary controls to warrant approval of this request. Commissioner Agee commented in support of the motion as he felt that although the applicant was trying to improve the area, parking was inadequate and until such time as the matter was resolved, the use permit should be denied. Commissioner Seely commented on his position to the request as stated at the previous meeting an felt that the application could be approved as well as eliminating the imposition for offstreet parking, provided other conditions were added such as no on -site food preparation, no permanen dining facilities, etc. which would be sufficien under the circumstances in view of the occasiona use. Commissioner Balalis advised that the reason for the motion to deny the use permit was because of the daytime parking problem and the request for a change in use which would result in the type o businesses where people drive directly there and . need a place to park. He felt that any time the was a change in the use of a nonconforming build ing, the parking requirement should be re- evalua Page 5. MINUTES I ie re to INOE.X COMMISSIONERS City Of Newport Beach MINUTES $s December 16, 1976 MOLL GAIL Commissioner Heather brought up the fact that the use of the building had been "grandfathered" as i parking, since no parking was required when the use was established. Therefore, each Commissione must use his own discretion as to whether or not parking should now be required. Commissioner Cokas commented that neither approvi nor denial of this application would solve the parking problem in the area. In listening to tht tape of the previous meeting, he felt that the applicant was attempting to provide a solution tc the problem of parking for the Cannery Village ai not just his own parking problem. He also felt 1 denial of this request may seem punitive to the applicant and result in a loss of incentive to we towards a parking solution for Cannery Village. Commissioner Frederickson commented on the movemf under way to establish a parking district which • would serve the entire Cannery Village area and whether or not that was successful,there was an honest and strong desire to solve the parking problem. He also commented that if an error was made, it was in allowing The Factory to be devel( without parking in the first place. However, he felt that the proposed change in use was minimal and felt that the request should be approved and that the applicant should not be held back from using his property at this time. Commissioner Agee brought up the question of set a precedent in approving uses with the hope of some day there would be parking in the Cannery Village. Commissioner Heather suggested that a time limit be placed on the use permit which would allow fo review in two years relative to the matter of parking. Commissioner Hummel voiced concern with the banq use and related food Handling service and felt there was a need for a maximum occupancy load. X X X Following discussion, the motion to deny Use Peri 6es es X X X X No. 1809 was voted on and failed. Motion X Motion was then made that Planning Commission ma the following findings: Page 6. r ,ea ;ha ) r an >p ue ni Ke iNOIEx COMMISSIONERS A. City of Newport Beach December 16, 1976 ROLL CALL 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That sufficient parking exists on- street for the occasional catered banquet use during tt evening hours and that the conversion from commercial uses to the marine - oriented offic uses permitted under the General Plan may result in a less intense use of the property 3. The Police Department has indicated that thl do not contemplate any problems if sufficiel parking is provided for the proposed develop ment. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1809 will nol under the circumstances of this case be deti mental to the health, safety, peace, morals comfort and general welfare of persons resi • ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 5. That the proposed catering use is to be on occasional basis for catered banquets; the applicant has indicated his anticipated use would be approximately two a.month and that there would be no on -site food preparation or permanent food facilities on the premise and approve Use Permit No. 1809, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved floor plans and elevations. 2. That the proposed office uses permitted wit in the project shall be limited to: a. Marine - oriented offices such as yacht brokers, marine surveyors, and marine designers. • or b. Professional service offices such as engineering or architectural offices. Page 7. MINUTES le :e r. �y It t, ri- , an s. h- 1nmoex COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach MINUTES $y December 16. 1976 MOLL CALL 3. This approval shall be for a 3 -year period from the effective date of this action, and any request for extension shall be acted upo by the Planning Commission. 4. That there shall be no signing on the buildi advertising any type of restaurant or banque facilities. 5. That there shall be no on -site food prepara- tion or permanent dining facilities on the premises. 6. That the proposed catered banquet use shall not be open prior to 5:00 P.M., seven days a week. Planning Commission further discussed the motior and the request, including the setting of a precedent and reduction of the time limit to twc • years. Community Development Director Hogan brought up the matter of in lieu parking fees and suggeste d that some consideration be given to the possibi of recommending to the City Council the establi ment of a fee which would go into the parking f u to work towards a solution to the offstreet par4 ing areas. Planning Commission discussed this concept and its effect on this request under consideration. Motion X Following discussion, the above motion was amen Ayes X X to include a condition which would provide for Noes X X X X X in lieu parking fees for nonconforming uses in the Cannery Village, should such a policy be established by the City Council. Motion.failed Ayes X X X X The original motion to approve was then voted of Noes X' X X and carried. • Page 8. ng t lit sh- nd de INOEX COMMISSIONERS \\0• ROLL CALL 0 City of (Newport Beach December 16, 1976 nd #6 were heard concurrently because elationship. MINUTES establish the Planned Community Devel- ndards for the proposed Planned Commun- stcliff Grove," and the acceptance of mental document. Portion of Blocks 53 and 54, Irvin Subdivision, located southwesterly of Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive in West- cliff. P -C The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Same as Applicant > subdivide 10 acres into 32 lots for it development, one lot to be developed ►pe open space, and 4 lots to be devel- treets. Portion of Blocks 53 and 54,Irvine': Subdivision, located southwesterly of Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive in West- cliff. P -C The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Same as Applicant Simpson - Steppat, Newport Beach d a letter received from Michael and amme, dated December 16, 1976, in Page 9. MOMMMMMI 1NOEX T +om BR AMEND- MENT NO. 476 CONT. Item #6 TENTA- TIVE MAT_ TRACT 9620 CONT.TO JWN—.2 0 Items #5 a of their r Request tc opment Sta ity of "We an enviror Location: Zone: Applicant. Owner: Request ti residenti as landsc� oped as s' Location: Zone: Applicant Owner: Engineer: Staff rea Gloria Gr nd #6 were heard concurrently because elationship. MINUTES establish the Planned Community Devel- ndards for the proposed Planned Commun- stcliff Grove," and the acceptance of mental document. Portion of Blocks 53 and 54, Irvin Subdivision, located southwesterly of Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive in West- cliff. P -C The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Same as Applicant > subdivide 10 acres into 32 lots for it development, one lot to be developed ►pe open space, and 4 lots to be devel- treets. Portion of Blocks 53 and 54,Irvine': Subdivision, located southwesterly of Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive in West- cliff. P -C The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Same as Applicant Simpson - Steppat, Newport Beach d a letter received from Michael and amme, dated December 16, 1976, in Page 9. MOMMMMMI 1NOEX T +om BR AMEND- MENT NO. 476 CONT. Item #6 TENTA- TIVE MAT_ TRACT 9620 CONT.TO JWN—.2 0 COMMISSIONERS Z City of Newport Beach ncrcmhcr 1F_ 1Q7F ROLL CALL opposition to the request. Staff also reviewed the alternative proposal which, would change the access and configuration of one of the cul -de -se from Westcliff Drive to Santiago Drive. Additional changes and wording in connection wit the Planned Community were reviewed as follows: Condition No. 32 of Tentative Tract 9620 should be clarified by adding "Construction of the pedestrian /bike path shall be the responsibility of the applicant." In Section IV of the P -C text under paragraph 2.. Side Yards, reference to "on a common side of al access street" should be eliminated. The statistical analysis of the P -C text should be changed to reflect the same number of units • as that indicated by the approved tract map. Staff answered questions of the Commission relative to size of lots, traffic along Westcli Drive, access to the bike trail and enclosure o the flood control channel. Public hearings were opened in connection with these matters. Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, T Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission connection with this matter. He commented on t size of the lots and advised that the General Plan would allow 8 dwelling units per acre wher the proposed project contained only 3.2 dwellin units per acre. He reviewed the project and advised it was their desire to market the devel ment as custom lots, however, they would like t have the flexibility of developing all lots at the same time through a merchant - developer prog should circumstances change in the future. He commented on the 1.5 acres to be dedicated to t City consisting of a tree windrow, bike trail a open space. As to the question of traffic, it was felt that the project would not impact the • area to any great extent as indicated in the initial study. He reviewed the alternative des which was felt would provide a more efficient transition of the bike trail with Santiago Driv Page 10. MINUTES csl :h 'f ie 1n ie �a< I )P- rar 1e nd igi e. INOEX COMMISSIONERS 9c� y� �O�SA��91G;sR� City of Newport Beach MINUTES $z December 16, 1976 ROLL CALL Mr. Neish recommended that reference to 32 unit! be eliminated in recommendation No. 2 of Amendmi No. 476 and.that the P -C text for Westcliff Gro, be amended to "limit development to that provide by the approved tentative map. He also reques clarification of Conditions No. 8 and 12 of the Tentative Map of Tract 9620 and requested that Condition No. 14 be deferred in some way so as postpone any construction until such time as a master plan for the trail had been established. As to Condition No. 20 of Tract 9620, Mr. Neish advised that it could be eliminated if the Plan ning Commission approved the alternative as previously discussed where the easterly cul -de- took access from Santiago Drive. Commissioner Heather voiced concern with the pi meal approach of developing the Castaways prope and Mr. Neish advised that this particular area under consideration was always thought to be . separated from the Castaways site because of th tree windrow. Mike Gramme, 900 Westcliff Drive appeared befor the Commission in opposition to the request because of the size of lots and increase in traffic. Paula Van Eden, 910 Westcliff Drive, commented on the hazardous traffic along.Westcliff Drive and felt that the development should be turned around and access to the cul -de -sacs taken from an extension of 16th Street. John Slevkoff, 1306 Westcliff Drive, appeared before the Commission to comment on the traffic hazard along Westcliff Drive and on the adjace streets in the area. Mark Fahey, 1034 Pescador Drive, commented on extension of 16th Street to Santiago Drive and the hazardous conditions along Westcliff Drive. He felt that an alternative plan should be designed for the proposed development. • Community Development Director Hogan advised that when the proposed plan was being developer it was the understanding of the staff and The Irvine Company that there would be no extensior of 16th Street to Santiago Drive because of the; opposition of the people who live on Santiago Drive. Page 11. an re ad tee to ;ai ea rt� e e nt the INDEX COMMISSIONERS 7Om 9` ��A4,PF y9 s` sum City of Newport Beach December 16, 1976 POLL CALL Will Staub, 1200 Westcliff, commented on the hazard along Westcliff Drive and felt that.some alternative should be planned in order to preclt further traffic along Westcliff Drive. Gerald Greer, 1300 Westcliff Drive, appeared before the Commission and requested that a bettf look be taken of the area before planning the development. Mike Reilly, 1400 Westcliff Drive, requested thi alternatives be prepared for the public's reviev before any decision was made in connection with this request. He also commented on the hazardol traffic along Westcliff Drive. In discussing alternate plans, Community Develol ment Director Hogan pointed out that the major considerations to this project were the preserve tion of the tree windrow with the bicycle trail • and the termination of Santiago Drive at this point so there would be no connection with 16th Street. City Engineer Nolan commented on the extension i 16th Street to Santiago Drive and the oppositioi of the people to such an extension. He also advised that regardless of the configuration of the proposed development, the traffic on Westcl Drive would not be affected or the problems solved and the real issue in connection with traffic on Westcliff Drive was whether or not Santiago Drive was connected to Dover Drive at 16th Street or some other point, thus enabling traffic by bypass Westcliff Drive. Ed Fretts, 1212 Westcliff Drive, appeared befor the Commission to comment on the traffic and fe that another street was needed into the area to relieve traffic on Westcliff Drive, regardless of whether or not it meant removal of the trees Commissioner Agee commented that thus public hearing had been useful and that more informati was needed. He felt that the applicant should get together with the City in order to more • clearly define some of the alternatives which in turn could be examined more closely. Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commiss Page 12. MINUTES INDEX Ide r It I is I- f I if. It Dn iol COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach MINUTES s oZ December 16, 1976 MOLL CALL in response to the suggestions raised. He comme ed on the various alternatives and felt that the problem along Westcliff Drive was one of traffic control rather than project design and suggestec that consideration be given to the installation of stop signs in order to slow down the traffic. Planning Commission discussed the various traffi problems which exist in the area, possible need for additional alternatives and studies, and possible access to the proposed project through the tree windrow.. City Engineer Nolan commented that the real iss( was the extension of Santiago Drive which could only be addressed at a full public hearing and i the context of future planning for the entire Castaway site. He suggested that one of the conditions of approval be that the design be modified so as to enable the future extension of • Santiago Drive should future planning dictate the need for such an extension. Planning Commission discussed the trees and thei possible removal, the need for some arterial streets through the City in order to relieve traffic on residential streets, the possibility of a continuance, the need to separate traffic problems from the impact of the proposed develor ment, need for some insight as to the future development on the Castaway site, extension of 16th Street to Santiago Drive, and solving of tf present traffic problem along Westcliff Drive. Ed Benson, 1028 Westwind Way, appeared before ti Commission and felt that The Irvine Company would have to provide a better definition as to the development of the Castaway site and advise( he had no objection to the extension of Santiag( Drive in order to provide another access into ti area. Mike Gramme, 900 Westcliff Drive, appeared befog the Commission to comment on the installation o- stop signs and felt they would do no good. Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, TI Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission requested that if the Planning Commission did not approve this project, they would rather hav( the request officially denied rather than Page 13. .n i c ie n r ie ie ie •e le�In INDEX COMMISSIONERS s City of Newport Beach December 16, 1976 ROLL CALL continued in order that the matter could go to t City Council on appeal. The reason for this request was that if The Irvine Company must get into the matter of the Castaways development, they would like to have that direction from the City Council. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearings were closed. Commissioner Frederickson commented on the publi hearing and the intent of The Irvine Company to consider this site as being separate from the Castaways site, felt that the traffic problems Santiago and /or Westcliff Drive would exist whether or not this parcel was developed, that this development would not add a significant amount of traffic to the area, felt confident t the alternatives had been reviewed and did not feel that the development of this parcel should • be inhibited or that the planning problems of the Castaways site should be forced at this tim Motion X Therefore, motion was made that Planning Commis sion accept the negative declaration; approve t Planned Community Text for Westcliff Grove as amended; and approve the original plan of Tenta tive Map of Tract 9620, subject to the conditio recommended by the staff. Motion X Substitute motion was made that Planning Commis• sion continue this matter to the meeting of January 6, 1977 for the purpose of developing some of the alternatives suggested during the public hearing. The reason for the substitute motion was in order that the Planning Commissio could effectively explore other alternatives instead of arbitrarily sending the project on t the City Council for action. Commissioner Balalis concurred with the continu ance as he felt that some aspects of the develo ment were good and others needed more study and felt the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to review the alternatives before making a decision. Commissioner Seely advised of his surprise that the request was presented to the City as a separate site from the Castaways and commented in support of the continuance. Page 14. MINUTES on ha e. he n F!Z INOEX COMMISSIONERS Q p City of Newport Beach MINUTES • � Y �� °gyp % ;� f s °z December 16, 1976 ROLL CALL All Ayes The substitute motion was voted on and carried. Staff commented on the agenda for January 6, 19; which appeared to be quite lengthy and advised that some of the new items may have to be contir ued because the time limit in the Code required that action be taken on this matter unless the applicant agreed to a continuance to a later dal Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, The Irvine Company,appeared before the Comm.iss, to comment on the continuance and following discussion, reluctantly consented to the date o+ January 20, 1977 for this continued hearing. Motion X Motion was made to reconsider the motion for All Ayes continuance. Motion X Motion was then made to continue the public A L1 Ayes hearing on Amendment No. 476 and Tentative Map • of Tract 9620 to the meeting of Jnauary 20, 197' Proposed Revisions to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Motion X Motion was made that the Rules of Procedure of All Ayes the Planning Commission be amended as to Articl XI. Committees to read as follows: XI. COMMITTEES A. The Chairman may appoint such committe as may be deemed necessary to carry ou the functions of the Planning Commissi Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Chairman. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 969, All Ayes setting a public hearing for January 20, 1977, to consider changing the zone from C -1 to.R -2 o • property located at 806 to 814 East Ocean Fron and 815 East Balboa Boulevard. Page 15. INOCX 7, e. on r. Item #7 ?S t ) n n t ULES 0 PROCEDU MENDED x • ; COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach • December 16, 1976 POLL CALL MINUTES Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 970, All Ayes setting a public hearing for January 20, 1977, to consider the master plan for Bayside Drive Park, located along Bayside Drive from the existing City park at Carnation Avenue to Larkspur Avenue. Motion X Planning Commission changed the date of the All Ayes regularly scheduled meeting of February 3, 1977 to the date of February 10, 1977, because of the conflict with the dates scheduled for the League of California Cities Conference. Motion X There being no further business, motion was made All Ayes to adjourn the meeting. Time: 10:35 P.M. • '1 WILLIAM AGEE, Secr tary Planning Commissi n City of Newport Beach 'r Page 16. INDEX