Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 95-3 (C)GPA 95=3 (C) CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NBCC EAST (aka CORPORATE PLAZA WEST) TPO Technical Notes Prepared for: O Hill Partners Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 667 0496 o oFEFSSIO u�Q� \Ov S. FON / C CF CAl.1F ,Q' September 26, 1995 to " ^ �✓ t NBCC EAST (aka CORPORATE PLAZA WEST) TPO Technical Notes These technical notes summarize the results of a preliminary analysis conducted to determine whether or not the Newport Beach Country Club proposed expansion complies with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The proposed project consists of 24 single family detached dwelling units, an 85-room resort hotel, an 8,000 square foot spa (of which half the patronage will come from on -site uses), 46,000 square feet of medical office space and 4,000 square feet of general office space. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project generates 2,294 trips daily, of which 167 trips are generated during the AM peak hour and 256 are generated during the PM peak hour, based on Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) trip generation rates. This site is currently entitled for 94,000 square feet of professional office use as part of Corporate Plaza West Plan (Ordinance No 9240, Amendment No. 770, adopted August 24, 1992). Under that plan, this site is entitled to 1,222 ADT with 207 AM peak hour trips and 216 PM peak hour trips, respectively. By way of comparison, the proposed change results in fewer peak hour AM trips (40 vph) and increase in overall daily trips (+1,072 ADT) and PM peak hour trips (+40 vph). Since the project creates an increase of 40 PM peak hour trips, a preliminary TPO analysis was conducted regarding potential project impacts to the same intersections (20locations) and during the same time frame (project completion by 1997) as the Corona del Mar Retail Project. The list of approved projects from the Corona del Mar Retail Project analysis was assumed to add traffic to background conditions, as well as the Corona del Mar Retail Project itself. The general trip distribution from the Corona del Mar Retail Project TPO analysis was utilized for the proposed project, as shown in Figure 1. All 20 study intersections pass the TPO 1 percent analysis and do not require any further analysis. Therefore no additional mitigation is necessary for the project to pass the City's TPO analysis. NBCC Fast (aka Corporate Plaza West) TPO 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inn Techa!W Notes 520001.tn LAND USE Table I PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY -AM PEAK HOUR- -PM PEAK HOUR - UNITS rN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES Resort Hotel Rooms .20 .10 30 .20 30 SO 6.00 Resort Hotel Bungalows' .10 30 .40 .40 .20 .60 6.00 Spa TSF .60 .60 1.20 1.90 .190 3.80 40.00 MedicalORwe TSF 2.07 .62 2.69 1.22 2.86 4.09 34.17 Office 73F 1.90 30 2.20 .60 1.70 230 13.00 PROPOSED ENTITLEMENT Resat Hotel 55 Rooms 11 6 17 11 17 28 330 Resort Hotel 30 Bungalows' 3 9 12 12 6 18 180 Spat 8.0 TSF 3 2 5 8 7 15 160 Medical Office 46.0 TSF 95 29 124 56 132 186 1,572 Office 4.0 TSF 8 1 9 2 7 9 52 SUB -TOTAL 120 47 167 89 169 256 2,294 ' Bungalows are 1 and 2 bedroom units ' s Baud on 50 percent on site pauouate NBCC Fast (aka Corporate Plaza West) TPO 2 Austin -Fart Associates, Inc TwIniesl Notes 520001.ro CITY OF NEWPORT BIACH ROLL CALL MINUTES u) Q 3 W F F- xM Q MM Lj U0.70 W 0 W November 13, 1995 Departments have noticed a decline in ,scavenging the past few weeks which he felt was partially due to the combination of public inforr. ation and enforcement. He added that they veil continue to address this problem on a daily bass. Dolores Citing, l74,Hillsborough Drive, addressed the Council regardin6*4he collection and recycling of newspapers, and 4suggested the City give consideration to ins`t'alling drop-off stations throughout the City, including the City Yard, which could help in eliminating unwahjed scavengers. Mayor Pro TernDebay also suggested residents divide their newspapers into diffeeent refuse containers and then put their trash on top.' ° , Inasmuch as this item was an informational report, no action was taken. 23. Report from Planning/Building Department regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-3 - Request to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan as follows and to sustain the action of the Planning Commission to initiate proposed amendments C, D & E; direct staff to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and schedule for public hearing before the Planning Commission: A. 2201 2207, 2215, 2301 & 2345 E. 16th Street: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi -Family Residential; and B. 507 509, 511 & 513 West Balboa Boulevard: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi -Family Residential; and C. Newport Beach Country Club/Corporate Plaza West: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to allow residential, hotel, spa, and office development in conjunction with a Master Plan for the Newport Beach Country Club, Golf and Tennis Club; and Volume 49 - Page 491 INDEX GPA 95-3 (45) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL 3 g n axo Z U a: c'� J H o November 10,199hi INDEX D, 400 AndeiHa Drfv*. Irvine Terrace: GPA 95-3 Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow for the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots for single family development; and E 507 i 515 Orange Avenue: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Two Family Residential to Multi-Fomiy Residential, to allow for the development of eight units on the properties. Val Skoro, 1601 Bayadere Terrace, Vice Present of Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association, addressed the Council regarding Hem D above, and stated that he attended the Planning Commission meeting when this matter was discussed; however, his Association had not had time to take a position on the proposal. Subsequent to that meeting, their Board of Directors considered the request and "vigorously" opposed the proposed subdivision. He stated that Irvine Terrace has approximately 380 homes in Its development and there has never been a lot subdivided in its history; their concern is that if this is approved, it would not be fair to the homeowners and would create a "nightmare." He referenced a petition signed by 35 residents in opposition to the request stating It was their feelings that It would be in the best interest of all to maintain the current configuration of plot size as originally designed, and that the proposed subdivision would set a precedent and alter the character and quality of the Irvine Terrace neighborhood. Patricia Temple, Planning Manager, noted that to Irvine Terrace, as in many other residential areas of the City, the Land Use Element contains a provision that no subdivision which would result in additional dwelling units is allowed. This provision was incorporated into the General Plan in 1988, in response to a number of requests for subdivision of lots in contemporary subdivisions. Most of these requests involved lots which were larger than average due to the presence of slopes or other access restrictions which caused the original subdivider to increase the lot size. This particular request represents the exact situation which the General Plan provision wos intended 10 address. This lot is larger than average due to its location on Volume 49 - Page 492 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL u, a Q w Q a � W A= ' W O U "' J 0 Z 0 November 13,1995 INDEX the outside curve of the comer of Angelita Drive GPA 95-3 and Bayadere Terrace, in association with a significant grade differential between the street and the lot. It is also an unusually shaped lot. She described the potential subdivision proposed as enumerated in her report. It was indicated that if the Irvine Terrace Association had actively opposed the subject request when it was before the Planning Commission, the Commission might have voted to deny the proposal. Janet Aengst, 2021 Bayadere Terrace, addressed the Council and stated she and her husband reside adjacent and below to the lot in question, and if the request is approved, it would maximize the space, increase density and could set a precedent; also, any new building would overlook their house and they would lose the privacy they now enjoy. She submitted the petition in opposition referenced earlier by Mr. Skoro. James W. Ray, 424 Angelita Drive, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed subdivision, stating he would lose his view if approved. In response to question raised by Mayor Hedges, the City Attorney stated there is a provision in the General Plan that would currently prevent lot splits In this particular area; however, what is being requested is an amendment to the General Plan, not approval of a lot split and not approval of a parcel map; issues relative to access, lot configuration, etc., would be addressed during the parcel map stage, and during that process there are seven findings which would mandate denial of the parcel map. What is being asked at this time is very preliminary to the actual evaluation of the tract map. Council Member O'Neil indicated he was not aware of any controversy regarding this particular Issue, and therefore, is not prepared to vote to initiate the requested General Plan Amendment. He also felt there was not enough evidence at this time to convince him that this proposal is necessarily a good idea. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Debay stated that based on the facts presented by the Planning Manager, she would move to deny the subject request. Volume 49 - Page 493 6 CITY OF NEWPORT 46 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL A �3®�carc�o x o Novemb*r13,1995 INDEX Mayor Hedges spoke in opposition to the motion, GPA 95-3 stating there is nothing in the City's Toning Code that would prohibit what is being requested, and in order for the property owner to enjoy due process rights associated with the ownership of that real property, the property owner ought to be allowed to go through the administrative process which is what this is. He Is not prepared at this point to consider any evidence which is really not even before the Council, and he does not believe that a denial on this basis achieve$ those goats of protecting owners property rights or their due process to enjoy those property rights. Council Member Watt stated she is going to support the motion to deny the request, but wanted to take issue with the Mayor's previous comments, and that she would be concerned if the Council made it a practice to change the General Plan zoning in areas like Irvine Terrace at the request of an individual lot owner. Ayes x x x x x x The motion was voted on and canted. Noes x Motion x Council Member Waft referenced Hem E in the above, stating that two of the Planning Commissioners voted against this initiation because of it being a "piecemeal" type rezoning of properties in the area, and therefore, she moved to not Initial* this request. Motion x Council Member Glover stated that she to* this was a very good project for the area and a positive step for the neighborhood. She added she Is not aware of any opposition to the request, and therefore, made a substitute motion to sustain the action of the Planning Commission and MMiat* o General Plan Amendment on the subject request. In response to question raised by Council Member Edwards regarding the design of the proposed eight units, Council Member Glover Indicated that some of the development will share some walls, but in essence, the project will resemble small houses. Mayor Pro Tern Deboy stated she will be supporting the substitute motion inasmuch as there will be a site plan review and the development will be built In the configuration of townhomes. Ayes x x x x x x The substtiute-motion was voted on and carried. Noes x Volum* 49 • Page 494 .A^ 49 0 aE�rpG,7r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: November 13, 1995 pF @ PLANNING\BIIILDING DEPARTMENT cl ,3 ' Agenda Item No.: si 0 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Patricia L. Temple NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644-3228 (74) 644'32M FAX (714) 644-V50 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-3 SUMMARY: Request to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. 2201 2207 2215 2301 & 2345 E. 16th Street: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi Family Residential. B. 507 509 511 & 513 West Balboa Boulevard: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi -Family Residential. C. Newport Beach Country Club/Corporate Plaza West: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to allow residential, hotel, spa and office development in conjunction with a master Plan for the Newport Beach Country Club, Golf and Tennis Club. D. 400 Angelita Drive Irvine Terrace: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow for the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots for single family development. E. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from 7ivo Family Residential to Multi Family Residential, to allow for the development of eight units on the properties. Suggested Action If desired, sustain the action of the Planning Commission to initiate proposed amendments C, D & E; direct staff to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation At the October 5, 1995 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the initiation of the requested General Plan Amendments for items C through E above. The Planning Commission declined to recommend initiation of items A & B. A copy of the Planning Commission staff report and an excerpt from the minutes with the Commission's action are attached. Discussion The Planning Commission declined to recommend initiation of two requested amendments. In considering the request on 16th Street (A), the Commission determined that the existing single family neighborhood appeared stable, and that there was no clear justification to change the General Plan in this area. In considering the request on West Balboa Boulevard (B), the Commission concluded the actions to reinforce single family development on the Balboa Peninsula taken in the 1988 General Plan update, rezoning this area from R 3 to $-1, were still appropriate and should not be changed. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENTS KENNETH L DELINO, Assistant City Manager By -PQ2( .4 ,,t.ca Patric'at. Temple PlanningManager Attachments: 1. Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes of October 5, 1995 2. Staff report to the Planning Commission - October 5, 1995 awed Plus Amadmad 9" Novanbe 13, M Paget A 0 r COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX reword the text. Appropriate changes will be to Associations. There bein c ions, this item was tabled to later date. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-3 will be sent SUMMARY: Initiation of various requests to amend the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. 22012207 2215, 2301 & 2345 E. 16th Street: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi- family Residential. B. 507 509 511 & 513 West Balboa Boulevard: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi Family Residential. C. Newport Beach Country Club/Corporate Plaza West: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to allow residential, hotel, spa and office development in conjunction with a master Plan for the Newport Beach Country Club, Golf and Tennis Club. -12- Item 6 GPA 95-3, A Denied 5-3. B Denied GPA 95-3, C Approved h J 0 16 COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 INDEX D. 400 Angelica Drive. Irvine Terrace: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow for the subdivision of an existing lot in to two lots for single family development. E. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from 7k'o Family Residential to Multi family Residential, to allow for the development of eight units on the properties. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Staff if this should be discussed item by item? Ms. Temple answered that given the interest in the various components of this item, it would be best served to consider them one by one. Commissioner Gifford stated that by considering them one by one testimony could be taken on all of them then voted separately. It was agreed by all. Public Hearing was Opened on Item A. 2201, 2207, 2215, 2301 & 2345 E. 16th Street Staff had no additional comments but noted that an additional letter was received from William Wheeler and Lori Wheeler, property owners at 2315 16th St., in opposition to this proposed ,Amendment. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if there is an applicant and if that applicant had been provided a copy of tonight's letter. Mr. Budnik was not in attendance but he will be given a copy of the letter. Mr. Jan Vandersloot, a resident of 14 years at 2221 E. 16th St., spoke in opposition of this Amendment. He stated it is not appropriate to change this R-1 family residential community into something more dense. He -13- II • 0 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES q, \ \\�. tioF\90 0\�9��-ra, �1cpF�F9�ry�a�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL stated that apparently Mr. Budnik, the applicant, moved in 7 months ago and read about the Castaways Project in the August Coastal Magazine and became concerned over "losing money on his house". Mr. Vandersloot states that this is not a good reason to change the General Plan from R-1 to a multi -family residential. All of the houses on this block are older houses with very little turn over. It is a typical neighborhood community composed of both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa residents. The traffic on the street has been reduced by about 50% because of the speed bumps and stop signs that the residents had put in courtesy of Costa Mesa three years ago. He feels that the Castaway Project will be an asset for their community and the property values will rise because of the upscale development and traffic will be mitigated by the speed bumps and stop signs that are in place. He has a list of six signatures of homeowners involved opposing this initiation. A copy of a letter sent to Mr. Kranzley was introduced for the record. He summed up by saying that there is no reason whatsoever to turn the neighborhood into a multi -family residential. The people are taking care of their houses. Mr. Richard Baron, 484 E. 16th St., on the Costa Mesa side but directly across the street from Mr. Budnik. He spoke up in opposition to this change basically agreeing with previous testimony. Commissioner Adams asked for clarification of addresses on the map that was provided by Staff. Mrs. Marion Rayl, 426 San Bernardino addressed the Commission in opposition to this Amendment. She stated that the traffic has been decreased in that area, and feels that the zoning change would destroy all the work that has been done. It is definitely a single family community and asks that this Amendment not be granted. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that Mr. Budnik did call. He was very strong on the phone. Commissioner Ridgeway continued by stating that he is not in favor of this Amendment and opened this up for Commission discussion. -14- 0 I COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes I , I f it I i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 INDEX Commissioner Kranzley said he was opposed to this issue. He felt that this area was a residential area with visible signs of homeowner efforts and initiative with speed bumps, stop signs and care of homes. Commissioner Selich stated that similar neighborhoods in Huntington Beach where there were influences occurring around the periphery of the neighborhood, zoning was tinkered with was disastrous. He feels that the edge of the communities should be maintained. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is obvious when you go down the multi -family area you can see deterioration in the way the property is maintained. This truly demonstrates what these folks are saying. Commissioner Gifford opposes this Amendment, stating that the City has worked hard to make it a desirable residential community and encourage livability. These residents have shown such a cohesive community on their street and have worked together to get things accomplished Eke speed bumps, this is the kind of neighborhood we specifically want to preserve. Motion was made to deny the initiation of General Plan Amendment 95-3, Part A. MOTION CARRIED, All Ayes. Public Hearing_was Re -opened on Item B. 507, 509, 511 & 513 West Balboa Boulevard. Staff had nothing to add to their reports, but was available to answer Commission queries. Ms. Marcia Dossey, 3377 Via Lido, represented her client Mr. Kenneth Riley. She distributed copies of and read a letter from Mr. Riley who was unable to be in attendance. She then spoke on her own behalf and stated that as a Realtor, she has the support of potential townhouse (condo) owners for Mr. Riley's proposed project. The area in question now has 4 very old houses that are tenant occupied around $1,000 to $1,200 per month. This project would be upscale with resident ownership, the traffic pattern would change and the utilities would be placed under ground to promote a cleaner, safer environment for everyone. She summed up by -15- t, COMMISSIONERS 0'S" t��Z�9p`9�?09�cP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX asking the Commission to consider the benefits of improvement ,in the area by a mix of multi -family and single family residential properties. Commissioner Adams asked Staff about new development with construction in existing units in conformance with existing zoning, would a new development be conditioned to take vehicular access from the alleys? Mr. Edmonston answered yes it would. Therefore, Commissioner Adams continued, if the existing single family homes were razed and reconstructed, the permits would eliminate the existing curb cuts on Balboa Boulevard. I � � Mr. )✓dmonston answered yes, that would be consistent with City Council policy, the applicant could appeal that to the City Council. IIi I Commissioner Ridgeway stated that this is a change of Zone from R-1 to R- I 3 on West Balboa Boulevard. He commented that there are three I I I i Commissioners who live on the peninsula and are knowledgeable about the i I area. Commissioner Gifford stated that her perspective and BPPAC's is that there iis a great effort to promote and increase single family residential on the peninsula. To that end, a GPA was approved at the last meeting to convert I the Ebell property which is immediately adjacent to this, to R-1. There are I nice and new single family residential homes built on Balboa Boulevard over the last 4 or 5 years and any benefits that might be achieved by new construction on these parcels could be done within the R-1 zoning and could deliver greater benefits in terms of keeping the neighborhood as residential and owner occupied as possible. The commercial property across the street has been the subject of considerable comment about future down zoning so that the whole block on both sides would become single family residential. She continued by stating she would not be inclined to support this request. Commissioner Kranzley asked Staff how wide the lots were. Ms. Temple stated 30 feet. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that owner occupied residential units are important with past experience in relaxing the condominium conversion law -16- COMMISSIONERS \\\\\\\N. ROLL CALL Motion A11 Ayes ' i� I I. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 INDEX in the City to encourage resident occupants. Balboa Boulevard is very difficult to live an. He feels that a well done project would be a benefit to the neighborhood, he does agree with Staff not to do these changes on a spot basis but rather in a comprehensive study. There has been talk about in Central Balboa, reducing the commercial and perhaps creating denser residential to support the commercial, which is exactly what these people are asking for. Perhaps a comprehensive plan could be initiated that include in the Central Balboa area, a discussion of density bonuses for residential and clean out some of the non -useable commercial. Commissioner Selich stated that this is similar to a Huntington Beach area that ended up with mixtures of single family homes, duplexes, four-plexes, six-plexes, eight-plexes and 22 units over parking, in the end it came down that the best solution was single family homes. Motion was made to deny the request to initiate to amend the General Plan Amendment 95-3, Part B. MOTION CARRIED, All Ayes. Public Hearing was Re -opened on Item C. Newport Beach Country Club/Corporate Plaza West Staff had nothing to add to their reports, but were available to answer Commission queries. The applicant was not present. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he had been contacted and asked Staffwho the applicant was. Ms. Temple stated the applicant is Mr. O'Hill, the owner of the Newport Beach Country Club. She continued, the City's policy governing General Plan Amendments does require that Parcel specific GPA be at the concurrence of the property owner. A portion of this property is owned by the Irvine Company. When the -proposal came in, Ms. Temple discussed the issue with Mr. Redwitz of the Irvine Company who indicated that the Irvine Company was in agreement with this applicant pursuing the initiation on their property at this time even though they are not a party to the project. The City does have the concurrence of both property owners in the request. -17- 0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway asked if this was in writing, Ms Temple stated no, this was a telephone conversation. Motion * Motion was made to initiate acceptance to approve the General Plan Amendment 95-3, Part C. MOTION CARRIED, All ayes. All Ayes Public Hearing was Re -opened on Item D. 400 Angelita Drive, Irvine Terrace Staff had no additional comments but noted that an additional letter was received from Mr. And Mrs. John P. Connelly, property owners at 415 Avocado Avenue in opposition to this proposed Amendment. A copy of thus letter was presented to the applicant. Conunissioner Ridgeway asked Staff if the Irvine Terrace Homeowner Association was notified of this request and did Stafftalk to them. i� Ms. Temple said this is a discussion item and formal notice would occur at the hearing level if initiated. i Commissioner Adams asked if they could point out the Connelly property in ' j relationship to this site. Staff answered with an approximate location noting I I it is one of the larger parcels with a common property line located on Avocado Avenue. Commissioner Ridgeway stated for the record that as a past member of the Irvine Terrace Homeowner Association there was on another occasion an attempt of a lot of El Paseo to be subdivided. The Homeowner Association was opposed to that application. Commissioner Adams stated that this case is a little different than the first two previously heard. He is not sure if the appropriateness or inappropriateness is clear. It may be worthwhile to initiate this item so that the decision -could be made with the input of the Homeowner Association with the knowledge of more information of the lot sizes and more detail information from Staff. He is asking for more information. -18- I COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 R CALLOLL I I I I I I I I I INDEX The applicant, Mega Voge, 400 Angelita Drive distributed copies of the parcel map and pictures showing elevation to the Commission. She would Eke direction from the Commission concerning the feasibility of this proposal before spending a great deal of money in formal proposals with supporting documentation. The neighbors were informed of this proposal as well as the Homeowners Association. While some of the neighbors had concerns and questions, there were no objections. A majority of the board voted in favor of the parcel split citing the unique size of the property and location. These resulting lots would be larger than the average lot in Irvine I Terrace, approximately 12,329 square feet and 13,624 square feet. Several trees on the lot would have to be removed and others trimmed back resulting in view enhancement of neighbors. The two new homes would enhance the character of Irvine Terrace and would not take away the spacious feeling which exists. The parcel split would not set a precedent because there are no other lots of this configuration and size in Irvine Terrace. The Staff report raises concerns of the driveway location for Lot B. Mr. Duca had visited with the Voges and suggested at the elevation of the slope at the property line of 4 feet 9 inches, the proposed driveway would be 18 feet wide and referenced the picture showing the driveway placement. Each of the pictures were summarily referenced in relationship to retaining walls and driveways. This configuration would require minimum excavation and would allow for retention of most of the slope. The proposed parcel split will allow therm to continue living in the area they enjoy so much without taking away from the enjoyment and value of the property in their community. She would like some direction from the Commission about this proposal. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated thanking the Commission for their time. Commissioner Ridgeway explained his comment earlier about the lot on El Paseo that it was much smaller than this larger one. Mrs. Janet Aengst, 2021 Bayadere Terrace which is immediately down hill from this property and share common property he on the curve of Bayadere as it becomes Angelita then spoke. They ate at a much lower elevation than the Voge residence. She spoke in opposition of this initiation. She spoke of the proximity of the homes in relationship to looking into their courtyard and house. Mrs. Aengst is concerned about -19- • 0 COMMISSIONERS ti�F'9i o\^�G�9 o��•o�� �.9y!�oy, J'pti c�Fq��2r p.9OJ, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX losing their sense of privacy and spaciousness as well as the ambiance. Another question she raised is the safety issue of driving down Bayadere Terrace with a sharp turn going up Angelita at an increased rate of speed, making another driveway at the curb would be too dangerous. It would be difficult and unsafe for egress and ingress. She cited recent accidents where people had not made the turn and actually took out the street lamp. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if they were next to the Washburn house. She explained the immediate neighborhood surrounding the address in ! question. j! Commissioner Ridgeway asked if this subdivision was to go forward, any ! house that would be above you would be on the front of her property that i faces Bayadere it would not be approaching into your viewscape or i ! impairing privacy as you look out to the bay. � Mrs. Aengst answered no but their privacy would be impaired. Staff was asked for an opinion on a set back on that property line. Ms. Temple stated that the existing zoning would control the side yard ! ! I setbacks. In this particular case it would be an R-113 district which would require a six foot side yard. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if this could be changed during this discussion. Ms. Temple stated that a zone change ! Amendment could be included to establish a specific set back on the side yard line. Commissioner Kranzley suggested that if the applicant did not get the subdivision and simply tore down their house and built another house on the same lot they could still binder the privacy of Mrs. Aengst. Commissioner Adams stated the setbacks along that property line will not change with a lot split. The envelope remains the same and will not change. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that this is an initiation and we are getting a little too detailed. He asked for further comments. ! -20- tt �t COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT 13EACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 ROLL I I I I I I I I CALL I INDEX Motion All Ayes Mrs. Voge said she called the City to confirm the setbacks and was told it was ten feet on the side that is closest to Mrs. Aengst's house and ten feet on the back and four feet on the other side and ten feet in the front with a ten foot easement in the back and on the side as well. Commissioner Adams said that if this is initiated, Staff would work on this proposal and investigate mitigation for problems that were brought up tonight or in the General Plan Amendment process. I Commissioner Ridgeway stated that these people are about to spend quite a jbit of money on engineering surveys and studies. They would like to have some sort of comfort level in what the Commission will do and suggests that Staff be given direction. i Commissioner Adams said we have no business giving comfort levels, how can we predict what will happen or what could happen during the General j I Plan Amendment process. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there are no assurances. He suggested that the Voges are looking for some type of inclination which way the Commission would lean. Who knows, if the 384 homeowners of Irvine Terrace showed up and said they were opposed, then the Commission would be inclined to be opposed as well. Mr. Val Skoro, 1601 Bayadere Terrace stated that at the Homeowners Director Meeting the past Tuesday night, they were inclined to let the process start and get input from the neighborhood, The Association Board of Directors did not take a position of opposition to this proposal. The Commission then discussed the cost to the Applicant, timing and other implications of initiating the Amendment and gathering resident input. Motion was called to initiate General Plan Amendment 95-3, Part D with Staff input to include set -back wording. MOTION CARRIED, All Ayes Commissioner Pomeroy cautioned Mrs, Voge that if the majority of the Homeowner Association speaks out opposing this, it is not going to get -21- 0 • COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 ROLL I INDEX CALL approved. Commissioner Ridgeway voiced the same comment and said it may take a couple of elevations and you are going to have to protect the privacy of Mrs. Aengst and build a quality project. Ms. Temple advised that this is the first step in the initiation process and it will proceed for Council consideration for initiation November 13th. If the Council concurs and agrees to an initiation then it would be for the applicant to get together with Staff to define those items of information including topographic maps, soils analysis or other items needed to understand the project and proposal. This would allow for environmental and other assessments before scheduling for Public Hearing. Public Hearin was Re -opened on Item E. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue Staff had nothing to add to their reports, but were available to answer Commission queries. Commissioner Selich asked how many units could be put on presently. Staff answered that the 2 R-2 Lots could accommodate 2 units per lot or a total of4. Mr. Tod Schooler, 500 North Newport Boulevard, Suite 206, architect and representative of the Applicant addressed the Commission. He stated that he had met with Staff on how to utilize this lot with commercial properties behind it and bordered by streets and alleys. The original idea was to arrange 10 units on this piece of property, but after looking at other zoning in the area it was not feasible. Two car garages will be incorporated in the design for each unit as well as open space allowing for a "town home feel". Commissioner Ridgeway addressed Staff stating that if this is approved for a high density town house project could some other person put up an apartment complex. Ms. Temple answered that within the limits of the density that the General Plan would be changed to, yes. Tenure of occupancy is not dictated. -22- i COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ��y°�° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH oy �y90f?�9J ` October 5,1995 ROLL CALL I INDEX Commissioner Selich asked the size of the two lots. Mr. Schooler answered around 16,000 square feet total. He affirmed that the access would be from the alleys to enable the house, not the garage to be seen from the street. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that with the pre-school across the street he is concerned with the traffic and without curb and gutters and improvements on the property, it would create a confusion for both school and the entire block. He further stated that the area needs improvement. Commissioner Kranzley verified the amount of dwelling units as 8 unit apartment buildings as opposed to town houses. Commissioner Ridgeway explained that the problem the Commission has with this type of applications once approved, the applicant bails and some other guy could come in and put up some type of substandard development. Commissioner Thomson stated that as this property is on the corner and there is curb and gutter setbacks, what is really the usable or buildable square footage. Mr. Schooler answered that he had not checked it but there is quite a bit of open area in the middle. Commissioner Thomson stated that with the loss of approximately 20% of the area on the comer, he is concerned with the impact of 8 units. Mr. Schooler said that plans will be submitted, with the intent to not maximize from the buildable area of the FAR stand point. It will not look like a large box, but rather a home that would be appealing. Ms. Temple stated that site plan review could accompany the General Plan and Zone change to review and condition the site plan. Commissioner Selich asked outside the property on Newport Boulevard is there anything not zoned to R 2 now? Ms. Temple answered, no. -23- ri 0 .• COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 5, 1995 ROLL I INDEX CALL Notion Ayes Noes Commissioner Gifford stated that a City policy needs to be established that gives assurance to land owners in an area that is zoned in a particular way that if they invest in their property, spot zoning will not be done thereby, changing the character of the neighborhood. The wrong message is sent if spot applications are approved or introduce a new type of zoning that is more dense into a neighborhood. The public needs confidence that our policy is consistent and they would feel more comfortable about making improvements on their property in conformance with the existing zoning. Commissioner Selich agrees with Commissioner Gifford. If this is approved, a number of other properties in the neighborhood would be coming in to make the same request. Again, it comes down to, in maintaining these areas we must be careful with what happens on the periphery of them and careful of how they are zoned. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that Old Newport Boulevard is undergoing a comprehensive study at this time. Orange Avenue is a very wide street and is a bus route to 17th Street. This property is adjacent to a mixed use on Old Newport Boulevard. This transition piece needs help, has been undeveloped and is an eyesore therefore he supports this initiation. Conunissioner Pomeroy stated that it is hard to have consistent zoning when you have an inconsistent City. We have to recognize that and try to maintain the economic vitality of the City and how the City changes. He supports this due to the uniqueness of its location. Commissioner Kranzley commented if there is resident dissatisfaction with the potential rezoning, this would come out in Public Hearing. Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment 95-3, Part E with site plan review. MOTION CARRIED, 5 Ayes, 2 Noes -24- 6 aEa r CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: October 5,1995 PLXNNrN6\9UIIDIN6 DEPARTMENT Agenda Item Noa 6 ' ' + 33o NEWPORTBOUMVARD Staff Person: Patricia Temple NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9260 (714) 644-3228 (74) 441u" FAX (N) 44-VSO Council Review: automatic SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-3 SUMMARY: Request to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. 2201, 2207, 2215, 2301 & 2345 E. 16th Street: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi Family Residential. B. 507, 509, 511 & 513 West Balboa Boulevard: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Single Family Residential to Multi Family Residential. C. NNport Beach Country 1C"ub/Corporate Plaza West: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to allow residential, hotel, spa and office development in conjunction with a master Plan for the Newport Beach Country Club, Golf and Tennis Club. D. 400 Angelita Drive, Irvine Terrace: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow for the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots for single family development. E. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation for these properties from Tien Family Residential to Multi Famlly Residential, to allow for the development of eight units on the properties. SUGGESTED ACiTON: If desired, recommend to the City Council: A. That the proposed General Plan Amendment(a) be initiated and staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission; or B. That the request(s) be returned to the originator without further action, or ;Lo E C. That action on the requested amendment(s) be deferred to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. Backeround City Council Policy K-1 states that: "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the month during which proposed amendments are to be initiated. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy of initiation, it may recommend initiation of amendments as set forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that initiation of the amendment is unwarranted. The City Council, after consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either initiate the proposed amendment and direct the Planning Commission to set for public hearing, return the request to the originator without further action, or defer action on the proposed amendment to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department work loads and project priorities." Reotlested Amendments 2201 2207 2215 2301 & 2345 E. 16th Street: Five property owners on East 16th Street have requested a change to the land use designation in the area from Single Family Detached to Multi - Family Residential. The letter of request indicates that it would be the intention of the proponents to consolidate the remaining R-1 lots on E. 16th Street in order to build a townhome project. The letter does not indicate the density requested. As indicated in the attached exhibit, the five lots of the project proponents represent less than half of the R-1 lots on this section of 16th Street, and are not all contiguous to each other. Additionally, two of the property owners in the area (see exhibit), have indicated a preference to retain the existing land use designation and zoning classification. This area of Newport Beach is on the border of the City of Costa Mesa. This part of Costa Mesa has a large number of newer condominium -style developments, mixed within the older single- family neighborhoods. The area is also in close proximity to Newport Harbor Haigh School and the Oakwood Garden Apartments. In the City of Newport Beach, the area immediately abuts single family development on Laurel Place. Further west along 16th Street, there are multi -family and duplex developments. The properties in question are older single family structures, but are generally stable and in good repair. There is one home on the westerly end of the request area which is in disrepair. On a lot by lot basis, improvements to various properties are occurring in the neighborhood. General Plan Amendmmt 95.3 oclober5,1995 Page 2 .5 �: It is the opinion of staff the initiation of the entire R 1 area on East 16th Street is premature at this time, since fewer than half of the property owners have requested the change. Further, Council Policy K 1 only allows property owners to make specific parcel amendment requests. It would be possible to initiate for the three parcels at the comer of E. 16th Street and Irvine Avenue, since they are contiguous lots and could be considered suitable for the multi -family designation requested. However, this would introduce higher density development in an area which is uniformly sloe &ntily on the properties to which they are immediately adjacent. If the entire area was designated for Muld-Family Residential at the highest density allowed by the MFR Zoning District (1 unit for each 1,200 sq.ft. of land), 70 units could be built on the propetty(36 du's per acre). Should the Planning Commission desire to initiate allor a portion of the request, staff would suggest establishing a lower density. In Newport Beach, a more typical density in non beach areas is 20 units per acre, or 1 unit for each 2,178 sq.ft of land. 507, 50% 511 &, 513 West Balboa Boulevard: Three property owners on West Balboa Boulevard have requested a change to the land use designation for four lots from Single Family Detached to Multi -Family Residential. The letter of request indicates that it would be the intention of the proponents to consolidate the lots in order to build a townhome project. The NM Zoning District would allow 7 units on the consolidated property. This request would essentially undo the residential downzoning enacted as part of the 1988 General Plan Update. At that time it was determined to change the designation from Multi -family to Single Family in recognition of the fact that each lot was allowed only 1 dwelling unit due to the small size of the properties; and also because there was no trend to lot consolidation. There was little objection to the re -classifications at that time. This request presents an interesting question for the City, since the property immediately to the west, the Ebell Club, is in process to establish R 1 Zoning. It is the opinion of staff that this request would represent a significant departure from the overall character of residential development on the Balboa Peninsula. With a few exceptions, new development tends to respect the original subdivisions. Further, staff would suggest that if consideration of multi -family developments on consolidated blocks is desired, that the land use designation and residential development standards on the peninsula be studied in a more comprehensive manner, rather than a project -by -project basis. Newport Beach Country Club/Corporate Plaza West: The owner of the Newport Beach Country Club has developed a conceptual plan for the improvement of the country club, tennis club and vacant land at the corner of Newport Center Drive and East Coast Highway. If approved, the existing uses would be reconstructed, and residential, hotel, athletic club and office uses added to the site as part of a comprehensive master plan. A concept site plan is attached to this report. The proposed project represents a major entitlement program which will include the preparation of traffic, environmental and fiscal impact studies. A portion of the site is owned by The Irvine Company. While they are not a party to this request, they have indicated to City staff that the Country Club is authorized to pursue the entitlement characterized on the conceptual site plan. Owmal Mn Ammim" 9J-3 odobrl,1993 Page3 400 Angelita Drive Irvine Terrace: The owner of this property has requested a General Plan Amendment in order to allow subdivision of the parcel. In Irvine Terrace, as in many other residential areas of Newport Beach, the Land Use Element contains a provision that no subdivision which would result in additional dwelling units is allowed. This provision was incorporated into the General Plan in 1988, in response to a number of requests for the subdivision of lots in contemporary residential subdivisions, such as Harbor View Homes, Spyglass Hills, etc. Most of these requests involved lots which were larger than average due to the presence of slopes or other access restrictions which caused the original subdivider to increase the lot size. This particular request represents the exact situation which the General Plan provision was intended to address. This lot is larger than average due to its location on the outside curve of the corner of Angelita Drive and Bayadere Terrace, in association with a significant grade differential between the street and the lot (12 to 15 feet at the westerly end). The potential subdivision proposed on the attached exhibit would result in two lots which are of similar size to those common in Irvine Terrace. One lot would have a very long street frontage, but would be more shallow than is typical in Irvine Terrace. This particular lot raises the concern of staff in the area of site access. Since •a topographic map has not been provided, staff is unable to firmly conclude if a driveway cut meeting maximum slope standards can be accommodated on site. However, it appears that a driveway cut near the easterly property line could probably be accomplished with grading and the installation of retaining walls. If an adequate driveway access is infeasible, a shared driveway arrangement could also be possible. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue: This is a request to change to the land use designation for two lots from Two Family Residential to Multi Family Residential. The letter of request indicates that it would be the intention of the proponents to consolidate the lots in order to build a townhome project of 8 dwelling units. The project site is a small block across the alley from the Old Newport Boulevard commercial district. While the surrounding residential areas are designated Two Family Residential, the site has no common property lines to any residential of commercial property. The proposed density is approximately 22 dwelling units per acre. Suggested Action The City Council has requested separate consideration and action on each amendment request. ME WRTW . rr�l�.rr I Patricia L. Temple " Planning Manager omaal Plan An=dmed 95.3 odober 5,1995 Page4 Attachments: 1. Appendix "A" 2. Letter from Christopher Budnick, I& & Mrs. Steve Myers, Sherry Carsen, Mr. Lawrence Zero, and Lyman V. Sterling regarding East 16th Street 3, Letter from Samuel and Ellene Wray regarding East 16th Street 4, East 16th Street Vicinity Map 5. Letters from property owners of 509 - 513 West Balboa Boulevard 6. 509 - 513 West Balboa Viciu y Map 7. Letter from Y.A. King and Associates regarding the Newport Beach Country Club S. Conceptual Site Plan for the Newport Beach Country Club 9. Letter from WilBied & Meka Voge regarding 400 Angelita Drive 10. Conceptual lot split for 400 Angelita Drive 11.400 Angelita Drive Vicinity Map 12. Letter from Morgan Development, Inc. regarding 507 & 515 Orange Avenue 13. 507 & 515 Orange Avenue VicuutyMap GmW Plus AMftA00l9" Ocbbu 5.1995 page 5 • 0 Planning Department Workload Council Policy K-1 requires that the initiation of General Plan Amendments include consideration of departmental workload and priorities. A list of current project is provided for the information of the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendments and Major Projects In -Process Following is a list of General Plan Amendments being actively pursued and major projects underway. General Plan Amendments GPA 90-2(E) General Plan and Zoning Consistency and Cleanup Amendment GPA 90-3(B) Review of Recreational & Environmental Open Space and Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities Land Use Categories GPA 92-1(C) Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan GPA 93-2(C) Recreation and Marine Commercial Designation GPA 95-1(A) CalTrans West/CalTrans West Residual Parcel GPA 95-1(B) Revisions to Calculated Density and Intensity Policy GPA 95-1(C) Commercial Policy GPA 95-2(B) Newport Center Drive GPA 95-2(C) Newport Village GPA 95-2(E) Newport Harbor Lutheran Church General Plan and LCP Implementation 1. Review and Update Zoning Ordinance Consistent with General Plan 2. Amend Planned Communities (PC's) consistent with new General Plan 3. Adopt LCP Zoning and Implementing Ordinances Regional Activities 1. Participate in preparation of County -wide Congestion Management Plan 2. SCAG Regional Strategic Plan Monitoring and Implementation 3. Participate Regional Housing Needs Assessment Sub -Committee 4. 2000 Census - Data Needs Identification and Census Tract Boundary Review 5. Participate in Orange County Housing Authority 6. Participate in Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force 7. City/County Coordinating Committee on Homelessness 8. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency 9. Air Quality Management Plan review and development of implementation procedures 10. Orange County Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee owenl Plan Amwdmet95.3 odoba5,1995 Page • 0 9 11. Participate in the Regional Advisory and Planning Committee (RAPC) Technical Advisory Committee 12. Review Amendments to OCTC 20 Year Circulation Master Plan 13.Orange County League of Cides/OCTC Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program 14. Administration of Federal Entitlement Funds Allocated through the Community Development Block Grant Program 1. Complete Central Balboa Specific Plan - Coastal Comtnission Processing 2. Prepare Old Newport Boulevard Specific Area Plan 3, Newport Information System Implementation including Ongoing Mapping and Database Development 4. Prepare Comprehensive Reorganization of the Zoning Ordinance Inactive Proiects Following is a list of inactive projects which are on the Planning Department workload list. They are inactive either pending the receipt of a related zoning application from the project proponent, ft ft from the City Council or the actions of other agencies. These items could become active at any time. GPA 88-2(D) Public Safety Element Update GPA 90-2(A), Santa Ana River Mouth LCP GPA 91-2 407 Bolsa Avenue GPA91-3(G) Circulation Element Update GPA 92-1(D) Regulation XV Facilities Floor Area Amendment GPA 93-3(A) Amling's Nursery Property GPA 94-1(C) Circulation Element, Dover Drive GPA 94-2(C) Cloobeck Property GPA 94-3(B) 424 Old Newport Boulevard GPA 95-2(D) Newport Harbor Art Museum Park Dedication and Fee Update Hazard Waste Management Plan Monitoring and Implementation (Tanner) Oenerd PLa Mnai6nml9J,9 odobxs,l9ss Pagel h� l� 0 Ms. Patricia Temple - Planning Manager 9/7/95 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Subject: Request for Initiation, General Plan Amendment Application for Rezoning Dear Ms. Temple, In view of the councils decision to alter the plans for the Castaways project, we the undersigned residents of East 16th Street wish to initiate a request for rezoning our properties from RI to R3. We feel that it is in the best interests of the city and the surrounding area to rezone these properties at this time. This is necessary to offset the negative impacts to our property values resulting from the Castaways plan changes which relocated the active park site from Dover Drive to 16th Street and reduced the number of entranoelexits for the Castaways development to only one. As the gateway to Newport Beach, these highly visible properties could reflect much better on the city of Newport Beach if they are redeveloped with tasteful, luxury townhouse similar to those at the comer of 16th St. and Tustin Avenue. Prior to the Castaways plan changes, there was little incentive to upgrade these properties due to the regional traffic directed down our residential street from Dover Drive. With the recent Castaways plan changes, there will be no incentive without rezoning and the properties will continue to blight the area. The proximity with Oakwood Apartments and Harbor High School as well as the large number of existing R2 and R3 properties already on 16th Street suggests that rezoning would create a more consistent planning environment for all of 16th Street. The City of Costa Mesa has already used this approach to successfully redevelop 16th Street properties, providing a boost to the neighborhood and increased tax revenues for their community. Per your instructions, we will follow up this request for initiation with a General Plan Amendment Application for Rezoning that we would like included on the agenda for the regularly scheduled planning meeting this October. Although they are not included in this letter due to time constraints, we plan to include as many owners of the remaining RI lots on 16th Street as possible on the application to avoid spot zoning. Sincerely, Christopher L. Budnik 2215 E. 16th Street Newport Beach Mr. Lawrence Zero - P.E. 2201 E. 16th Street Newport Beach co. Norma Glover Don Webb Mr. & Mrs. Steve Myers 2207 E. 16th Street Newport Beach Y. - 7 rhif man 1; 2 3.4 E. I b a`- S-F m- rm & 63 :%yFRRY Chr-Srld r23o1 StX-1 IFW7-11 ST' PLANNING DFPARTKj[,.?, E CITY OF NVJVPOR1 T 8FACR AM SEP 27 1995 PM �ISI�`tlUliltut�121�t415t6 0 0 September 26, 1995 The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658 This letter concerns residential zoning on E. 16th Street, Newport Beach. Superceding any previous oral or written opinion on the part of the undersigned, the undersigned hereby record their opinion in favor of a continuing rating of R-1 for the residentai lots on East 16th Street, Newport Beach, California. Thank you for your attention. �'Gfidr•LtU. �v�1CG L Samuel S. & Ellene B. 4ray 2227 E. 16th St Newport Beach CA 92663 646-2388 R fi EAST 16TH STREET VICINITY MAP �i3'r ♦• c I♦• .�♦' T , ! _ �' . 1'i�.'�'#'44 yi"i/'�'f.I'K)"G„XL .. ♦• .+:~-t1, i''t, �/y+�.''c'a.� � .♦ �#i^'�'�Y'kyl'Yli'"4.y�i4`f'i^,.iCn . ' . 9'-.r :• , ,: ;; , ; ;. c-y r �� •� � �� �. �• ra wood • �♦ . - ni�r � �?' ♦ tx •3'MRte'a'ir#*'�`s?,,,s�',FC.7 . •. =: . •rC � �! .:� i• 'r5. ;• b r �. G,P ••.: ,tr.< � ,'•#r r��l�`t ;• �' �� l,_ �� `1.�y ¢F "�VJJr. V}'%'Y��•kA�'FM�[... P:. � �I ., �+n r J�#�''�'Ty(,r 1•� 1 �' <l •'SY •II'�W"f, r�..f.�: � •'k a' r YS"�"/i�,`�e#'�yfi�`fl Y"Y.+.Ci "i'vf , 'WY'Iyf `.. w V 4 /V.'•i,. i� V�.k}'M. Y` •.f�.Vf'u "% tip' ± • �'� rT .4. .i �t ler.. . Newport Harbor ' High School rr� OFF CITY BOUNDARY Lij SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ; MULTI -FAMILY Nupert Inlor tlm SYtbm ® TWO-FAMILY PERSONS REQUESTING GPA PERSONS WISHING TO REMAIN SINGLE FAMILY 0 4 September 14, 1995 Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: Patricia Temple Planning Manager Re: MFR Codes, General Plan, Newport Beach Dear Ms. Temple: My property at 507 W. Balboa was down zoned from R3 to R1. Mr. Ken Riley property owner of 509 & 511 W. Balboa has created a project to enhance the area and I would be in favor of allowing an amendmentto the general plan to reinstate the R3 zoning code or equivalent new MFR code to allow this project. ;I� A. 17J September 14, 1995 Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: Patricia Temple Planning Manager Re: MFR Codes, General Plan, Newport Beach Dear Ms. Temple: My properties at 509 and 511 W. Balboa were down zoned from R3 to RI. I have created a project to enhance the area and I am in favor of allowing an amendment to the general plan to reinstate the R3 zoning code or equivalent new MFR code to allow this project. Sincerel Ken Riley • 0 STAN J. FROME 621 Donald Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 September 15, 1995 Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: Patricia Temple Planning Manager Re: MFR Codes, General Plan, Newport Beach Dear Ms. Temple, Pi.ANMINt~a F,•:, Pit I am the owner of the property at 513 W. Balboa Blvd which a few years ago was down zoned from R3 to RI. On one side of my property I have the Ebell Club's parcel, which is four times the size of my lot. The other side are two parcels owned by Mr, Xen Riley. I have recently heard of possible projects on all that property which would obviously enhance the area tremendously. If an amendment to the general plan is needed to reinstate the R3 zoning code or equivalent new MFR code to allow such a project, I would be 100% in favor of it. ! 0 VICINITY MAP 509 - 513 West Balboa Blvd. N Newport Bay J� Fo�F 0� �gTFR 4 k'f P e e ti BL)ENA QO O �O y e� Bq y BACBOA gOUQEVgRD WEST h; O v O OCEAN FRONT : �e PROJECT LOCATION e PACIFIC OCEAN City of Newport Beach Planning Department G� September 1995 0 0 ).A. KING & ASSOCIATES • Governmental Relations • Planning Coordination • Lind Use Analysis • Development Processing • Project Management • Public Utilities r HAND DELIVERED TO: Ms. Pat Temple, Planning Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 September 15, 1995 Re: Newport Beach Country Club, Golf Club and Tennis Club 1600-1602 East Coast highway, Newport Beach Dear Ms. Temple: Please accept this letter as the formal request to initiate an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan for the above -referenced property. This request will include the necessary zone change and amendment to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The request is consistent with the Conceptual Master Plan for improvements at Newport Beach Country Club, Golf and Tennis Club, a reduced copy of which is attached, These Master Plan of improvements include a new Golf Clubhouse, a new Tennis Clubhouse, a new center court and tennis stadium, and extensive improvements to P.O. Box 7992 the entry and parking lot, including significant landscaping. In addition, the Newport Beach. CA Master Plan of improvements includes the removal of the cart storage area and 92658.7992 chain link fence eyesores adjacent to the 18th and 9th greens and replacement (714) ) 75c)-01 with a small number of single-family homes. Per the Conceptual Master Plan Fax (71a17s9.ois7 g Y P , the electric golf carts will be stored under the new Golf Clubhouse. The portion of the Master Plan involving the small development of single-family homes referenced as The East and West Villas is what necessitates this General Plan Amendment request. Landlord's agreement to release the fee land for The Fast and West Villas and their sale results in the source of money for the other Master Plan improvements. Thank you. Enclosure 00, A CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN *I 0 0 September 191 1995 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Wilfried & Meka Voge 400 Angelita Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Parcel division of 400 Angelita Drive, Irvine Terrace (lot 48, tract 2813) Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As owners of 400 Angelita Drive in Irvine Terrace, we submit this request to split our parcel into two lots. The proposed split is shown on the attached plot plan. According to a survey conducted in 1962, the size of the lot is app. 25,953 square feet. The proposed split would create two lots, with app.13,624 square feet and 12,953 square feet respectively. We purchased our residence almost two years ago, with the intent of remodeling the existing house. However, upon closer inspection, it has become apparent to us that all of the structures on our parcel need to be replaced, that we essentially own a very large lot. Unfortunately, we are not in the financial position to build one new residence on our present parcel. At the same time, the shape and position of our parcel allows for a split into two spacious lots without negatively impacting our neighbors' privacy or views. In fact, we believe that the proposed parcel split not only makes sense for us, but will serve to enhance our Irvine Terrace community as well. 1) Much has changed since the master plan for the Irvine Terrace community was developed over thirty years ago, and it could probably stand some slight revision. Many of the homes in our area have been remodeled, updated, or completely rebuilt. The proposed parcel split would allow two houses in the 3000 to 4000 square foot range to be built which would fit elegantly into the Irvine Terrace neighborhood, especially since we presently have over 220 feet frontage on Angelita Drive. 2) One of the unfortunate changes in our community is an higher incidence of crime. Our large, open lot makes us more vulnerable to potential prowlers. After an incident next door this summer, safety and security have become important issues in our neighborhood. Splitting our parcel into two smaller lots will make it easier to cope with this problem. 3) Since all utilities are easily accessible both on the rear and on the front of our property, the proposed parcel split would not overburden the present utility load. One more single family home would also not impact the traffic load in the neighborhood adversely. r J� • 4) The proposed parcel split would require us to demolish the existing structures since the new property line would run through our present house. In the process, we would also enhance certain views by replacing some of the trees and shrubs with lower vegetation. Two resulting smaller lots would require a more intensive landscaping plan and would be easier to maintain, and will thereby help us dealmore effectively with rats and other vermin living in the extensive underbrush on our present property. The result would be a significant upgrading of the landscaping, which will help make our part of the neighborhood more attractive. We believe that because of its unique shape, size, and location, our property lends itself to a lot split, unlike some of the other large lots in Irvine Terrace, without creating a precedent. At the same time, the resulting two lots would be about the same size as the average lot in our development. On a more personal level, the proposed parcel split would allow us to stay in a location and neighborhood which we have become extremely fond of. We, therefore, encourage the planning commission to give favorable consideration to our request. Sincerely, //� ✓�/ Wilfried & Meka Voge 723-1389 ANOZ4. rA i 0 VICINITY MAP 400 Angelita Drive �y 7 e e 0 w„ 00 a� o° e ,r Sit Location R ht e � R "IVA' ' a` a� N e a° e d *w 0� City of Newport Beach Planning Department September 1995 0 0 September 19, 1995 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Q,,-? 21 i,a3) AU Fig' c j8l9jwIi1iIZISIz13i4A6 We hereby request a change to the land use element. The change will be made from 2-Family Residential to Multi -Family Residential in order to construct 8 condominium units. Sincerely, MORGAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. Max Morgan, an President r�n MOWN DEVELOPMENT, INC. 301 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Costa Mess, CA 92627 Fhone t714) 548-8048 Fox 1714) 548- 8316 I 0 VICINITY MAP 507 & 515 Orange Avenue Site Location a T �P� ST9F� ORANGE NoOh 995 0 0. J.A. KING & ASSOCIATES • Governmental Relations • Planning Coordination • land Use Analysis • Development Processing • Project Management • Public Utilities HAND DELIVERED TO: Ms. Pat Temple, Planning Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 September 15, 1995 Re: Newport Beach Country Club, Golf Club and Tennis Club 1600-1602 East Coast Highway, Newport Beach Dear Ms. Temple: Please accept this letter as the formal request to initiate an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan for the above -referenced property. This request will include the necessary zone change and amendment to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The request is consistent with the Conceptual Master Plan for improvements at Newport Beach Country Club, Golf and Tennis Club, a reduced copy of which is attached. These Master Plan of improvements include a new Golf Clubhouse, a new Tennis Clubhouse, a new center court and tennis stadium, and extensive improvements to Po. Box 7992 the entry and parking lot, including significant landscaping. In addition, the Newport Beach, CA Master Plan of improvements includes the removal of the cart storage area and 92658-7992 chain link fence eyesores adjacent to the 18th and 9th greens and replacement (71(7 759-0669 with a small number of single-family homes. Per the Conceptual Master Plan Fax (714) 759-0157 g Y P the electric golf carts will be stored under the new Golf Clubhouse. The portion of the Master Plan involving the small development of single-family homes referenced as The East and West Villas is what necessitates this General Plan Amendment request. Landlord's agreement to release the fee land for The East and West Villas and their sale results in the source of money for the other Master Plan improvements. Thank you.