Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/1970CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Minutes of: Adjourned Meeting of Planning Commission Date: August 6, 1970 • Time: 8:00 P.M. Place: Cnunril ChamhPrc COMMISSIONERS 'P - \ k k 3 N 3 ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: MEMBERS Laurence Wilson, Planning Director x K x x x x x EX-OFFICIO Dennis O'Neil, Asst. City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Asst. Planning Director James E. Nuzum, Senior Planner William R. Foley, Assistant Planner Helen Herrmann * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** On motion of Commissioner Glass, seconded by Commissioner Dosh, and carried, the minutes of July 16,1970 were approved. On motion of Commissioner Glass, seconded by • Commissioner Dosh, and carried, the minutes of the Special Meeting on July 28, 1970 were approved, Commissioners Jakosky, Adkinson and Brown abstaining due to having been absent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Item 1. Election of Officers Commissioner Brown moved that all the present officers remain in office for the ensuing fiscal year; namely, John J..Jakosky,.Jr.,. Chairman, John Si Watson, 1st Vice Chairman, Curt Dosh, 2nd Vice Chairman and Don R. Adkinson, Secretary. In seconding the motion Commissioner Glass extended a vote'of confiders e and thanks to the officers and Secretary Adkinson agreed it had been a pleasure serving with them. The officers for the fiscal year 1970 -71 were elected unanimously. Planning Director Wilson stated that if the meeting did not run too late, he would like to present the following additional items to the Commission after consideration of the regular agenda items: • 1. Presentation by the staff on the General Plan program. 2. A discussion with reference to Page 1. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Aunuct fi_ 1Q7n COMMISSIONERS Use Permit No. 1461 for a car wash at Newport Center involving a change.in signs. 3. A letter concerning the keeping of livestock in the City of Newport Beach which was forwarded to the City Council. Planning Director Wilson also distributed to Commission members an organizational chart of the Planning Department as well as copy of _a letter from Calvin C. Stewart, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director regarding amendment No. 2 to the Sector 4 Land Use Plan of the Irvine Company. Due to the next two items being related it was suggested that they be heard concurrently. Item 2. AGE Request to amend a portion of District Maps No. 50 and 52 from an R -3 -13 District to an R -3 AMENDMENT District. Nl! 264 Location: Portion of Block 96, Irvine's APPROVED Subdivision located on the east side of Marguerite Avenue between San Joaquin Hills Road and Pacific View Drive. Zone: R -3 -B Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant Item 3. ZONE Request to adopt a specific plan of develop - THTWNGE ment for property.comprising a portion of AITElMENT Block 96, Irvine's Subdivision, as shown on NO. 6 District Maps No. 50 and 52. The proposed plan of development provides for a sixty -four APPROVED unit multiple- family residential complex con- sisting of eleven buildings, each two stories • in.height, with accessory recreation facilities, sixty -four off - street parking spaces in carports and sixty uncovered off - street parking spaces. Location: Portion of Block 96, Irvine's Sub- division located on the east side Page 2. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Auaust 6. 1970 COMMISSIONERS Y � a N �. N � i of Marguerite Avenue between San Joaquin Hills Road and Pacific View Drive. Zone: R -3 -B (R -3 requested) Applicant:. Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant The Commission discussed both amendments and it was pointed out that under the R -3 -B zoning it would be possible to construct 131 dwelling units, however, only 64 units are proposed under the Specific Plan. The main reason for the requested zone change to R -3 is the parkin requirement; 64 covered carports and 60 open parking spaces are proposed under the Specific Plan instead of the 128 garage spaces required in the R -3 -B zone. • Mr. James E. Taylor, General Planning Adminis- trator for the Irvine Company was and present stated that he had previously explained this development to the Commission; that the Irvine Company had read the staff reports and was ready to abide by the suggested conditions., After further discussion, Zone Change Amendmen Motion x No. 264 was recommended for approval subject Second x to the condition that the City Council concur- All Aye rently approve Zone Change Amendment No. 269. Zone Change Amendment No. 269 was recommended Motion x for approval subject to the following condi -. Second x tions: All Aye 1. No buildings shall exceed two stories in height. 2. Entrances to parking areas from Pacific View Drive and Marguerite Avenue shall be screened by walls and /or landscape treatment, to minirpize objectionable direct view of carports.and parking spaces; however, adequate sight,dis- tance shall be maintained for pedestria • and vehicle safety. 3. That_the City Council shall concur- rently approve Zone Change Amendment No. 264. Page 3. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • August 6, 1970 COMMISSIONERS Item 4. STREET NAME CHANGE APPROVED Proposed street-name change for that portion of 21st Street located between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue in the West Back Bay area. Senior Planner Nuzum stated he had heard from Dr. Frizzelle on Wednesday morning and been informed that the name "Holiday Road" was the only choice of the residents in the area. A memorandum was sent to both the Police and Fir Departments and Police Chief Glavas and Deputy Fire Chief Love indicated they approved the name change to "Holiday Road ". The City of Costa Mesa also did not object to this name." Dr. Frizzelle addressed the Commission and stated he appreciated the time that had been given to this matter. He stated further that at the homeowners meeting held on August 3, the name "Holiday Road" was the overwhelming • choice of the people; that he had contacted the Police and Fire Departments, who did not object to the requested name change and that the homeowners hoped the Commission wogld agree with their viewpoint as they.did not desire to present an alternate name and prefer" to "sink or swim" with the name Holiday Road. Mr. Richard Luckey also addressed the Commis- sion in support of the name "Holiday Road ". Commissioner Glass stated that the people had had their say and the mandate was clear, therefore he moved that the street name for Motion x that portion of 21st Street located between Second x Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue in the West All Aye Back Bay area be changed to "Holiday Road ". It was suggested that the City of Costa Mesa 'b approached about changing the portion of 21st Street in their city to concur with this name change. Item 5. Planning Director Wilson suggested that since Item No. 5 will take a greater length of time to discuss than Items 6 or 7, that it be set over until the end of the agenda. • Chairman Jakosky questioned whether, in view of the results of the joint meeting between the Commission and the Council on Tuesday, August 4, they were in thorough . accord that this particu- lar area has been considered for annexation Page 4. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • August 6, 1970 COMMISSIONERS U £ by the City Council; if not then this applica- i tion should go to the Council first. Planning Director Wilson replied that the note he had regarding the discussion.at the joint meeting is that all requests for prezoning be referred to the City Council unless they are in an area which previously has.been designate for future annexation and he interpreted the area covered by this application as being desi ignated_ for future annexation by previous action. Upon being questioned, the applicant agreed to Item No. 5 being held over until the end of.th agenda. Commissioner Glass stepped down during dis -. cussion of the following item. Item 6., U PERMI Request for a one -year extension of a previous approved use permit allowing three directional signs in the Dover Shores area. y N0. 144Z REQUEST FOR Location: Lot 35, Tract 4224, located at EMNSION 1742 Galaxy Drive on the easterly side of Galaxy Drive opposite the APPROVED easterly end of Holiday Road; Lot 289, Tract 4224, located at 1734 Santiago Drive on the south- easterly corner of Santiago Drive and Holiday Road; and Lot 59, Tract 3801, located at 1942 Irvine Avenue on the southeasterly corner of Irvine Avenue and Santiago Driv . Zone: R -1 -13 Applicant: Ivan Wells and Sons, Newport Beach Owners: Baycrest Shores Company, Newport Beach Jane W. Courtney, Newport Beach; a d Louree Cuningham, Fullerton After a brief discussion regarding the locatior Motion x • of the signs, a one year extension was approvec Second x with the .sti.pul a.t.i on . th.a.t.,,any, request for. Ayes x x x x x x further extension be referred to the Planning Abstain x Commission. Commissioner Glass returned to the dais. Page 5, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 6. 197n COMMISSIONERS V Item 7. REVOCA- To determine whether or not the Planning Com- TION OF mission shall revoke this use permit due to noncompliance with conditions of approval. Location:. Portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of USE PERMir CONTINUED Irvine's Subdivision located at UN I 393 Hospital Road, north side of 1GUST 20 Hospital Road between Newport Boulevard and Placentia Avenue. Zone: R -3 and C -O -H Owner: Central Newport Healthcare Corp. c/o Mission Convalescent Hospital San Gabriel, California Planning Director Wilson commented on the five deficiencies outlined in the staff report and stated that the first four -have been satisfied • but that the fifth (landscaping) has not as ye been corrected. He stated further that he had spoken that morning with Mr. Slavick who is the principal in the Central Newport Healthcar Corporation and that he had indicated the landscaping would be completed within the next week. Mr. Kenneth W. McCulloch, who is one of the three people involved (the original owner of the property) was present at the meeting and said since the representative from Healthcare was not present, he would represent the appli- cant, however, he stated that he personally did not feel it was his responsibility to re- place the landscaping. Mr. William Hudson, Administrator of Hoag Hospital was also present and stated that it was their understanding that they were to maintain the landscaping, not replace it; however the plants.on the south slope were dead when they took over the property and it was their understanding that the condition would be corrected by Healthcare and that the landscaping that has died would be replaced. • There was a discussion among the Commissioners that.perhaps temporary.conditional revocation might be a lever to get the landscaping done, Page 6. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 August 6, 1970 COMMISSIONERS N Item 5. ZONE CHANGE MENDMENT however Commissioner Brown stated he was im- pressed with the progress that has been made and moved that this proceeding be continued .for two weeks until August 20, 1970. Request to prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the City of Newport Beach for the purpose of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of subse- Motion Second All Aye x x AT._R�_8 quent annexation to the City. Specific con - CONTINUED sideration will be given to the establishment UN"TTL of a P -C (Planned Community) District to pro- AUGUS7 20 vide for development of approximately 356.6 acres of land, located north of San Joaquin Hills Road and east of MacArthur Boulevard (realigned), as a residential community com- prised of a mixture of residential densities and supporting facilities. Location: Portion of Blocks 91, 92, 96, 97, • 98 and 129 of Irvine's Subdivision located north of San Joaquin Hills Road and east of MacArthur Bouleva d (realigned). Zone: A -1 (Orange County) Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant Planning Director Wilson presented the applica tion to the Commission and referred to the status of the proposed annexation which has been approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission;.however there are a. couple of pend- ing questions as to resolving the water and sewer service. The actual request for annexa- tion has not, as yet, been filed with the City Council, however the matter has been dis- cussed and approved by the Council with the provision that water and sewer service be fur - nished by the City of Newport Beach and that the sewer service be satisfactory to Sanitatio District No. 5. It was also pointed out that • the procedure followed in this application has been to expand the area of coverage of the existing Harbor View Hills Planned Community rather than refer to this as a new planned community district. A letter from Mr. Cal Stewart, Director of Parks, Beaches and Recrea Page 7. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i August 6, 1970 COMMISSIONERS 0 C NN 10 � 3 N S NN ;r �O F tion was distributed to the Commission, in which Mr. Stewart outlined the fact that the P.B. & R. Commission did discuss this project and generally supports the concept of develop- ment. A major question to be resolved is how the elementary and secondary school provisions are to be met as under present conditions, the area is in two different school districts, which is a very unsatisfactory situation. The Planning Department has had some preliminary contacts with the Newport Mesa Unified School District officials as to how this could be worked out, but this is a question that will have to be settled by the school districts. Assistant Planning, Director Hewicker reviewed and explained the various aspects of the devel p- ment to the Commission and stated that the proposal had had only an initial review by the Planning Department; it has not been discussed • with the applicant or other City Departments. However, the P.B. & R. and Fire Departments have looked at the map and the Fire Chief believes another fire station will be needed, preferably close to San Joaquin Hills Road. Some minor changes in the text will be necessa y before the final version is submitted for approval. Mr. James E. Taylor of the Irvine Company .ex- plained that the proposal is for a hillside type of development, with a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq.ft. with the average lot size 7,000 sq.ft., which makes it.comparable to the Bren development to the west. The three specific problems - schools, the.park and fire station situation are worthy of mention but it is believed they can be worked out. The school system was also bisected by the Bren tract but it was worked out. They concur with the staff that it makes sense to be a part of the Newport Mesa School District; they are hopeful that the school districts can work out this situation and would look to the Planning staff and Commis -. sion to perhaps let their opinion.be known to the school districts. He stated further that • in all fairness, he wanted.the Commission to know that this plan has also been filed with the County of Orange for identical development. This was done when there seemed to be a slowing down of the negotiations between the City and Page 8. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Auaust 6. 1970 COMMyISSIONERS 101i'lov- The Irvine Company with reference to the water service issue and they felt they could not delay if that issue should hold up the zoning; Mr. Taylor said what he was attempting to say is that regardless of what school district this winds up in,.this will be a single family deve - opment. The Commission had a lengthy discussion regard ing this application showing particular concpr about the split in school districts, instructi g the staff to invite comments from these school districts; the park and linkage system; the fire station; the.water and sewer system and setbacks where structures abut a public plaza, park, mall or other permanent open green space It was pointed out that these problems would have to be resolved at the time of submission of the subdivision map. Mrs. Madge Rosamondo and her son Anthony of • 2071 Port Bristol Circle were present and Mrs. Rosamondo stated they are concerned about the use of the property adjacent to Ford Road. They have been in accord with the Irvine devel opments but they are concerned about commercia uses, high rise apartments or industrial uses in that area. After further discussion the application was Motion x continued until August 20, 1970. Second x Ayes x x x x x x ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Planning Director Wilson reviewed Use Permit Abstain x 1. No. 1461 approved by the Planning Commission on December 18, 1969 for a car wash in Newport Center. The name "Auto Wash" appeared on the original sign approval and the architect was not aware that.this is a copyrighted name. The name has been changed to, "Newport Center Car Wash" and there will be one sign without logo, on the north wall and another, with logo on the east wall facing the side street. Thes signs have been approved by the Irvine Company Architectural Group and are reasonable changes from the original plan. The requested changes Motion x • were approved by the Commission. Second x All Aye Page 9. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a August 6, 1970 COMMISSIONERS 2. Planning Director Wilson discussed with the Commission a letter which had been forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their meeting on August 10, 1970 relating to live- stock in the City.of Newport Beach. The lette recommended that Section 7.12.010 and 7.12.020 be repealed; however the Commission suggested that only Section 7.12.020 be repealed and that Section 7.12.010 be amended, as well as the second paragraph on page 2..of the letter which referred to these Sections. Planning Director Wilson read these suggested amend - ments.to the Commission for their approval. The Commission stated further that they had previously discussed this matter at length and that their opinion was known. Commissioner Adkinson made a motion that the Motion x words "or any other animal commonly thought Second x of as a household pet" be added to Section Ayes x x x x xx 7.12.010 and Commissioner Brown in seconding Noes x . the motion stated that we should preserve the possibility that a zone compatible with the keeping of animals could be developed in the future. 3. Planning Director Wilson displayed a composite General Plan map with overlay showing existing general plans for the City and surrounding jurisdictions. He also displayed a General Plan chart. These matters will be discussed by the Commission at the next study session. Chairman Jakosky said that if he could have the map, he would make reduced color copies for each Commissioner. ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Commissioner Watson stated that he would be absent on August 20, 1970 and Commissioner Brown added that he would also be absent on that date as well as on September 3, 1970. ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** On motion of Commissioner Adkinson, seconded by Commissioner Watson, and carried, the • meeting was adjourned. so QQll�� Do 7&so ecretary Planning Commission Page 10.