Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/1970Minutes of Date: • Time: Plare- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Adjourned Meeting of Planning Commission October 1, 1970 8:00 P.M. Cnunril r.hamhore COMMISSIONERS I - ki N \\ ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Commissioners Absent x x x x x x x EX-OFFICIC MEMBERS Laurence Wilson, Planning Director Dennis O'Neil, Asst. City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Asst. Planning Director Helen Herrmann Due to the absence of Chairma- n- Jakosky -; the - meeting was conducted by Vice Chairman Watson. On motion of Commissioner Adkinson, seconded by • Commissioner Dosh, and carried, the minutes of September 3, 1970 were approved. Commissioner Brown abstained from voting as he was absent on that date. On motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Dosh, and carried, the minutes of September 17, 1970 were approved. Commissioners Glass and Martin abstained from voting as they were absent on that date. Commissioner Brown stepped dawn inasmuch as he had been absent when this item was discussed at the previous meeting. Item 1. AMENDMENT Request to amend Use Permit No. 1302 to include a boat to be used as a 150 seat floating restau- TO USE PERMIT rant at the Arches Marina property. N077302 Location: Portion of Lot 170, Block 2, Irvine's CONTINUED Subdivision, located at 3333 West I KIT— Coast Highway, on the south side of 1l[ —BER 15 West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Drive. Zone: C -2 Page 1. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a October 1. 1970 COMMISSIONERS t.. 0n > \ \ Applicant: Newport Arches Marina, Inc. Owner: City.of Newport Beach and County of Orange Planning Director Wilson stated that he.had attended a State Division of Highways hearing in Laguna Niguel the previous evening and learned there was a possibility that additiona property might be leased from the State for parking purposes; not to the restaurant, the Centinela Bank or to the floating restaurant; but to the City of Newport Beach. However, it was indicated that.any such land should be leased to the City and County who in turn woul sublease to the tenants of the Arches Marina property. It was suggested that this item be continued until October 15, 1970 and be readve -. tised, together with the request of the Motion x Centinela Bank for T.V. banking facilities. Second x Ayes x x x x x . Commissioner Brown returned to the dais. Abstain x Commissioner Adkinson stepped down during dis- cussion of the following item because he is a member of the law firm representing the appli- cant: Item 2. USE PERMIl Request for waiver of the off - street parking requirements for a 91 seat restaurant,..and 90. 1476 further request to permit alcoholic beverages PARTIALLY to be served within 200 feet of a residential district. APPROVED Location: Portion of Lots 9, 10 and 11 of Block 12, Balboa Tract, located at 100 Main Street., Balboa, on the northeasterly corner of Main Street and Ocean Front Boulevard. Zone: C -1 Applicant:. Harry Alexon, Newport Beach Owner:. Same as applicant. • Mr. Dennis Harwood represented the applicant and thanked the staff for their cooperation in work- ing on this matter. He stated that they are presently trying to work out.some.type of leas arrangement but still would prefer an outright Page 2. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • October 1. 1970 COMMISSIONERS waiver of the off - street parking requirements. He also pointed out that City Council approval would be required before his client could open the type of business he is contemplating. After discussion,.the Commission decided that this request should be handled in two motions. The request for waiver of off - street parking Motion x requirements was denied. Second x Ayes x x x x x The request to serve alcoholic beverages with- Abstain x in 200 feet of a residential district was approved subject to the condition that a park- ing agreement providing the required number of Motion x parking spaces for the operation as proposed, Second x be approved by the City Council prior to issu- Ayes x x x x x ance of a business license for this establish- Abstain x ment. Commissioner Adkinson returned to the dais. It-em 3. XFPERMir Request to reestablish a gasoline service station which was a nonconforming use and has been abandoned for a period in excess of six N0. 1489 APPROVED months. Location:. Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 5, Balboa Tract, located at 510 East Balboa Boulevard at the northwest corner of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Phillips Petroleum Company, Downe Owner: Same as applicant. The Commission reviewed this application as well as some of the suggested conditions of approval. Mr. William Ervin represented the Phillips Petroleum Company and stated that this particu lar service station would not be identified as a. Phillips station but would be operated by • company employees under the name "Ex -Cel Servi a ". It was noted that they do not intend to provid services such as lubrications, motor and trans mission work, oil changes, etc., and that they Page 3. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a October 1, 1970 COMMISSIONERS � A', \50V_5 p 1 N are removing the hoist heads. It was explained that they would sell gasoline and motor oil products, soda pop and ice in cube and block form. After further_ discussion, the application was Motion x approved subject to the following conditions:.. Second x All Ayes 1. Operation of the station shall be limited to: A. Dispensing of gasoline. B. Sale and changing of engine oil and filters. C. Lubrication of motor vehicles. D. Sale and installation of batteries and minor automotive accessories. E. Sale, mounting and.repair of tires. F. Auto washing and waxing when done. entirely within a building but not including any automatic or self - service car wash. • G. There shall be no major engine tune -.. up, brake replacement,.upholstery work, glass replacement,..painting, welding, dismantling, body and fender work and engine or transmission over- haul: H. Merchandising - no service station shall be operated in a self- service manner. No sale; lease or rental of items, e.g., trailers, trucks, toys, peat moss, dolls or other items not clearly incidental to the automotive industry, shall be permitted: Soda pop, ice, candy and cigarettes may be sold via dispensers if such dispensers are housed within a building and are not visible to the public right -of -way 2. All tires, oils, additives and other auto -. motive items shall be housed within the building. No outside displays of merchandise of any kind shall be permitted. Allow oil etc., only,in cabinet on the service islan .. 3. There shall be no flags, banners, spinners streamers or other attention attracting • devices permitted at any time on the site. 4. Signing - a maximum of two signs, not ex- ceeding 100 square feet, shall be permitte on any service station site. One sign, Page 4. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a October 1. 1970 COMMISSIONERS G � P O- FN 3 0'5 w 3 subject to approval by the Planning Director may be permitted in a free- standing location. No rotating, flashing or animated signs shall be permitted. 5. All outside lighting shall be so arranged and shielded as to prevent any glare or reflection, and any kind of a nuisance, in convenience and hazardous interference on nearby property or streets. No direct illumination sources shall be visible from adjacent properties or public right -of -way . 6. Existing planters shall be retained and th landscaping in them shall be replaced and maintained. Watering devices shall be in- stalled, and shall be subject to approval. 7. The development shall comply substantially with the plans filed with the .ap.pl.,ication and these conditions of approval. 8. All new provisions for disposal of runoff water shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. 9. All other existing signs on the site shall be removed. 10. Gasoline delivery - no delivery tanker shall be permitted to park on public right -of -wa s during gasoline delivery. 11. The Planning Commission shall reserve the right without necessity of further hearing to require minor modifications of any.of the foregoing conditions or the working drawings if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results and will in no way be detrimental to adjacent properties and improvements than will the strict com- pliance with said condition and preliminar plans. 12. One price sign may be allowed subject to approval by the Planning Director. ItW USE PERMIT Request to conduct sale and display of boats. N0. 1490 Location: Portion of Lot A, Tract 919, APPROVED Page 5. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • October 1, 1970 COMMISSIONERS v O N O O O H located at 2244 West Coast High- way on the north side of West Coast Highway approximately 560 feet east of Tustin Avenue. Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Robert L. Hunt, Newport Beach Owner: W. J. Richardson Estate, Santa.Ana Mr...Robert Hunt, the applicant, was present at the meeting and stated that he had reviewed th suggested conditions of approval and was in agreement with them. After a brief discussion, the application was Motion x approved, subject to the following conditions: Second x All Aye 1. That standard concrete sidewalk and a concrete drive approach be installed on.the Coast Highway frontage. • 2. At, least 5 parking spaces shall be provided on site. Such spaces to be marked and provided with wheel stops. 3. Access to the required parking spaces shall be by a driveway at least 20 feet in width. 4. All signing shall be subject to, approval by the Planning Director. 5. A landscaping.plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director and shall be subject to his approval. 6. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan, and shall be properly maintained.. Item.5. USE PERMIT Request to permit construction of a gasoline service station in conjunction with the Harbor N0. View Hills Shopping Center. ED F Location: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Sub - CKL—E-NDAR division, located at the northeast corner of San Joaquin Hills Road a d MacArthur Boulevard (realigned). Page 6. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 October 1,.1970 COMMISSIONERS F O„o�� .FO�� o3m 1� \ Zone: C -O -H Applicant: Shell Oil Company, Anaheim Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Planning Director Wilson stated that it is recommended that this application be continued removed from the calendar at this time and re- Motion scheduled at a later date. Second x All Aye Planning Director Wilson indicated that the Irvine Company had not approved the Shell Oil Company's plans for a service station on this site and that.the application had,,not been signed by any official of.the Irvine Company. It was noted that although the application had been duly submitted and scheduled for hearing,. it would be premature to consider it at this time. Commissioner Adkinson stepped down prior to • consideration of the next agenda item stating that he did not think he should participate in the discussion as he had been involved in a similar application, Variance No. 991 of the M. S. Clegg Company. Item 6.. VARIANCE Request for reduction in. required off - street RO parking spaces for a proposed professional: building.from one hundred eight spaces to APPROVED ninety spaces. Location: Lot 4, Block 300, Newport Center, located at 369 San Miguel Drive, of the southerly side of San Miguel Drive, one hundred feet westerly.o proposed Avocado Drive. Zone: C- O -H -UL Applicant: Dan Olmstead, Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • Planning Director Wilson presented the applica tion to the Commission and stated that while 0e application is similar to the Clegg applicatio (Variance No. 991) a difference does exist in that Mr..Clegg had had working drawings.prepar d Page 7. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • October 1. 1970 COMMISSIONERS U N N N N o NZ and had applied for building permits. In the present case, the applicant, Mr. Olmstead, has not as yet leased the property from Mr. Lee, who is the lessee, final working drawings have not been completed and modifications may be possible which would permit some parking on site. Mr. Wilson went on to explain that Mr. Olmstead had contacted the Planning Depart-. ment approximately in July and had previously been informed by Mr. Lee and by the Irvine Company that certain areas could be deducted from the gross area of the building. This was confirmed with the Planning Department. Sub- sequently, in August, during the process of Preliminary design, Mr. Wilson discussed the matter with Mr. McDonald, Mr. Olmstead's archi- tect, and informed him this was not the case; that this was a mistake. Mr. Lee, who is still the leaseholder of this property was informed by the Irvine Company, prior to consideration of the Clegg application, that the "information previously given to him was erroneous. Whether • Mr. Lee and Mr. Olmstead have been in discussion regarding this, Mr. Wilson indicated he did not know. Mr..Wilson stated that he met with Mr. Olmstead in Mr. Dennis O'Neil's office yesterday and indicated to him that it was certainly his desire that the matter be handled in full fair- ness to all parties but he did not feel that th circumstances in this case were exactly the sam as in the Clegg case and that if we were going to have a requirement of one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross area, without deductions, we could not go on indefinitely with variances to do something less than this merely on the precedent that a variance may hav been granted to Clegg for his application. Mr. Daniel Olmstead addressed the Commission an stated that this was definitely a question of equity, hardship and fairness. He summarised the amount of money he was paying Mr..Lee for the lease, the amount of money which has been deposited into escrow, and the fact that unless he can build approximately 22,500 sq.ft. of leasable area, the project would not be economically feasible. He stated further that he had en- gaged the architectural firm of Reagan, Shoemaker and McDonald. He and Mr. McDonald came.to the Planning. Department to confirm what could be done and Mr. Nuzum, the Senior Planner, had given them the information.in. the application. Page 8. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a October 1, 1970 COMMISSIONERS N fi Mr. Olmstead explained that he then entered into a contract with this architectural.firm and they proceeded.to draw preliminary plans: Mr. Olmstead went on to state that he had.been out of town and did not hear anything until the latter part of August.following the denial of the Clegg building permit, At that time his architect called and explained that there was a problem, but not to worry, as the Assist- ant City Attorney and the City.Attorney had assured them that this would be handled in a separate meeting. Mr. Olmstead returned on September 8, went to see the City Attorney and the Assistant City Attorney, who in turn-calle in Mr. Nuzum, who explained that a variance would be required. Mr. Olmstead concluded by stating "if you deny me this variance you are denying me the property rights I am entitled. to and those which you have granted my neighbo , Mr. Clegg and that it would be unfair competi- tion through misinformation from the Planning Department ". • Commissioner Watson noted that the Planning. Commission is: really not involved with monetar value in any way, shape or form and that the dis -. cussion should be limited to the merits of the property and whether a hardship exi.sts.as defined in the Municipal. Code. Mr. Olmstead stated that he had been told by the Assistant City Attorney that this was a question and issue of hardship. Planning Director Wilson read into the record. Section 20.48.020(C) of the Newport Beach Municipal. Code defining hardship as it applies, to applications for variances: Mr. Woody Reagan, the structural engineer of the firm of Reagan and Shoemaker addressed the Com- mission and read notes made by Mr..Shoemaker regarding his conversations with the City. He stated they relied.on information given them by the City and he feels there is a moral respon- sibility to Mr. Olmstead in this regard. Mr. Wm. E. McDonald, an associate in the firm, also addressed the Commission and upon being • questioned stated that in order to provide the additional 18 spaces necessary for a building with a gross floor area of 27,000 sq.ft. (net leasable area 22,500 sq.ft.) it would be necessary to go four stories and they are limited to a height of two stories above San Page 9. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • October_l, 1970 COMMISSIONERS v 3 O n 3 Miguel Drive, which would preclude parking under the building. There was a lengthy discussion in which Mr. Olmstead reiterated that he felt he had been led down the "primrose path ", he did not think that he had a problem and had been misinformed by.the City Attorney's office. He also stated that Mr. Taylor of the Irvine Company had said he would be present at the meeting to back him up, as he had Mr. Clegg,,but that he was not present.. Assistant City Attorney Dennis O'Neil stated for the record "I think that I should make a statement on behalf of our office in connectio with this matter. Mr. Olmstead is correct in that I guess you could say he was led to believe by our office, that it would be an automatic thing, that he would get his variance based on the fact that Clegg got his variance. I think that Mr. Seymour, the City Attorney, was of th • opinion when.he discussed this first with Mr. McDonald and then with Mr. Olmstead that if th situation was the same as that in the Clegg case, that the precedent had been set. In fact, Mr. Seymour instructed me to contact Mr. Taylor of the Irvine Company, which I did, to find out if there, are. any others who were operating and r this misinformation,and that perhaps it would be a good idea if we did'hold a meeting.with t e two or three remaining developers and have it brought before the Commission to resolve in a "one shot" deal instead of these variances lik the one before us tonight. After my conversa- tion with Mr. Taylor, he agreed that he would give me this information and that he would coordinate it with Mr. Nuzum of the Planning. Department. Apparently this never took place; this -was the reason I never called Mr. McDonal back; it was my assumption that Mr..Nuzum and Mr. Taylor would work this out and that a meet.. ing would be held. Thereafter, we learned that the Planning Department was going to require the variance route. Again Mr. McDonald or Mr. Olmstead came in and talked to the City Atto.rn y and the City Attorney maintained the same posi tion -- I do not think the City Attorney mis- • led Mr. Olmstead; he was quite sincere in his feeling that if the facts were similar, it was his opinion, as well as my opinion, that because of the precedent set in the Clegg matter, that Page 10. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 01 October 1, 1970 COMMISSIONERS N the Commission would probably follow the same course, based purely on .a fair,:equitab.le decision in that we tried to.determine why the Commission reached the decision they did in,the Clegg case and it was,our opinion that they based it purely on a feeling of fairness and justice and equity under the circumstances'. Planning Director Wilson stated that the Irvine Company, specifically Mr. James Taylor, agreed that the Irvine Company would assume the responsibility of notifying all the lease- holders in the vicinity, of the parking requir - ments; subsequently Mr. Taylor informed the Planning Director that this had been done and that in this particular case, the leaseholder is still Mr..Lee and the Irvine Company was not able to obtain any information as to who might be negotiating.for the acquisition of th lease from Mr. Lee. The Irvine Company in formed Mr. Lee of the fact that parking re- quirements were being calculated on the U.B.C. definition of gross floor area, and not on net area. At the time of the Clegg application, the Commission was advised that there are 7 parcels in Block 300, three of the parcels are developed at the present time by the San Miguel office building, the Edwards Theatre and the veterinary hospital; the fourth is nearing completion (Azimuth office building); the fifth and sixth are leased to the Clegg Compan and Robert Thomas, both of whom received state- ments from the City of Newport Beach that the parking requirements could be calculated on ne leasable area. The last parcel, leased by Robert Lee and in the process of being sold, does not have that problem as they have been advised regarding the method of calculating parking according to the Irvine Company. Commissioner Glass stated that it had been.re- iterated to Mr., James Taylor of the Irvine Company that the City.was still waiting for the long promised tabulation of parking in Newport Center and as he understood it, it was not a tabulation of .parking spaces but a tabulation of actual.car counts taken at various times to • see just what the actual usage, load and need is. The letter from Jim Taylor dated September 21, 1970 contains a tabulation of the parking stalls but says nothing about the actual car count situation. Page 11. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • October 1 1970 COMMISSIONERS £ F a � � After a further lengthy discussion during whic. Commissioner Martin stated that he felt that the opinion mentioned by the City Attorney was misleading.and Commissioner Glass stated that he felt the Irvine Company should have exercis d more concern for the specific rights and speci is destinies of their tenants, Chairman Watson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Martin made a motion that the Motion x application be approved, seconded by.Commis- Second x sioner Glass: Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to have a minute to think about this application. Upon being questioned by the Chairman as to whether this was in order, the Assistant City Attorney stated that it was as long as the matter was not discussed during the recess. Chairman Watson called a l minute recess, and the meeting reconvened at 11:00 P.4. with all members present, with the exception of Commissioner Adkinson. The application was approved by the following roll call vote. Ayes x x x Noes x x Commissioner Adkinson returned to the dais. Abstain x Chairman Watson stated that he did not think that any further parking items should be passe on in the area of discussion until such time as an and /or reading on the amount of parking, needed for Newport Center is resolved. Commissioner Glass stated that even though he voted "yes" on this item, he is still against this method of calculating parking and still thinks the ordinance needs overhauling. Planning Director Wilson agreed and said he would appreciate it if Commissioner Glass would put some of his thoughts in writing as to what he would consider the most reasonable basis.. Chairman Watson inquired as to when the Com- mission could expect to receive the specific information being requested from the Irvine Company.and Planning Director Wilson said he believed the Irvine Company is gathering infor mation on this question; first what is the most • reasonable base for calculating the parking demand and second, what is the number that goes with that base. Chairman Watson stated he believed the Irvine Company.should give us a target date as to when they will get this Page 12. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a October 1. 1970 COMMISSIONERS 4 study to us and he would like to have some in- formation at the next meeting as to when that target date will be. Planning Director Wilson said he would have this information. Item 7. REQUEST Request for a two year extension of a previously FOR approved use permit.allowing six travel direc- ETTENSION tiohal signs. Location: Sign A - south side of East Coast Highway, west of Jamboree Road; USE _PE RMI NO. 39T-- APPROVED Sign B - north side of East Coast 1 YEAR Highway, east of Jamboree Road; Sign C - east side of MacArthur Boulevard, north of East Coast Highway; Sign D - east side of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Ford Road; Sign E - east side of Jamboree Road, south of Ford Road; Sign F - northwest corner of Jamboree Road • and Eastbluff Drive. Zone: U, U, C -1, P -C, U and R -3 -B Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant Mr. Bill Lippard, Supervisor of Property Service Department of the Irvine Company was present at the meeting. It was pointed out that Sign E has been removed and that Sign.F is covered by another use permit. After a discussion, an extension of one year Motion x was granted for Signs A, B, C, and D. Second x All Ayes Item 8. REQUEST Request for a two year extension of a previous - FR — ly approved use permit allowing three direc- ETENSION tional signs. USL PERMIT N= 1349 Location: Sign No. 1 - west side of Jamboree Road, 1100 feet north of San Joaquin APPROVED Hills Road; Sign No. 2 - east side li7rA R of Jamboree Road, 1200 feet south of San Joaquin Hills Road; Sign Page 13. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 1, 1970 COMMISSIONERS Y O- Qy N O O �S O 1 N 3 £ y F � 3} N 3 No. 3 - west side of MacArthur Boulevard, 3300 feet north of San Joaquin Hills Road. Zone "U" Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as applicant.. Mr. Bill Lippard represented the Irvine Compan . It was felt that the signs are stil fulfilling a necessary function, therefore, the applica- Motion x tion was continued for a one year period. Second x Ayes x x xx x Item 9. Noes x Discussion on proposed action by Planning Commission to initiate zoning amendment for property located south of San Joaquin Hills Road and east of Marguerite Avenue for reclass- ification from an R -3 -B District to an R -1 -B District. Planning Director Wilson addressed the Commis- sion and stated that at the time of the most recent Lusk subdivision at the tail end of San Joaquin Hills Road, where there was a ques- tion of. pedestrian access, it was determined that the subdivision was in an R -3 -B District rather than in an:.R -1 -B District. One of the requirements imposed was that prior to filing of the final subdivision map that the area be rezoned to an R -1 -13 District, to coincide with the manner in which it is developed. Mr. Jame Taylor of the Irvine Company has stated severs times that the reclassification for this area is about to be filed. Many of the people who have just moved into their homes in the Lusk Tract have the impression that this property was recently changed from an R -I -B to an R -3 -13 District. Mr. Wilson explained that he was invited to attend a meeting of the Harbor View Hills Community Association and that Jim Taylor.and some of the multiple residential people from the Irvine Company also attended. Mr. Wilson noted that this.area had been in a • multiple residential zone for a number of year , since 1965, and that the area where their home are located is presently zoned multiple resi- dential and that an R -4 unlimited height zone exists on top of the hill by the old reservoir. Page 14. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 40 October 1, 1970 COMMISSIONERS 9 N It was agreed that they would establish a liaison committee to meet with the Irvine Company regarding the zoning of land in their vicinity. Mr. Wilson explained his belief that there is interest in the Lusk Harbor View Hills development and the Broadmoor homes development to change the zoning in this area. It was noted that there are people who are very much opposed to the zoning west of Marguerite Avenue, although that is.not what is under consideration now. After further discussion, it was moved that Motion x when the zone change to R -1 -13 for the Lusk Second x area is filed, that the Planning Commission All Aye initiate consideration to include the area south of San Joaquin Hills Road and east of Marguerite Avenue, not.covered by the Lusk application, for change to R -1 -13 and that this zone change be published and the property owners involved be notified. On motion of Commissioner Adkinson, seconded by Commissioner Glass, and carried, the meetin was adjourned. '�-- h n�� -i-�. Don R. Adkinson, Secretary Planning Commission Page 15.