Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_11-09-2017NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017 REGULAR MEETING - 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kleiman III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Peter Zak, Secretary Erik Weigand, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Kleiman, Commissioner Kory Kramer (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Commissioner Lee Lowrey ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe, Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland, Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung, Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle, Administrative Support Specialist Brittany Ramirez and Administrative Technician Patrick Achis IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher, 2210 Private Road, related remarks regarding staff being an objective third party made at the applicant's meeting for the Kell Center project. He requested the Commission provide an opportunity for Mr. Campbell to share his views of staffs role in the process between applicant and decision -maker. Deputy Director Campbell stated staff is an objective, third party and disagreed with Mr. Mosher's characterization of his comments. Staff reviews issues and presents their best recommendations to the Commission and the community. Peggy Palmer, Kings Road, requested the Commission review the side -yard setback for new home construction in Newport Heights because the requirement prevents emergency personnel access to property. She also requested a 150 -foot section of the 15th Street sidewalk be completed during the holiday break. Newport Heights residents are displaying flags to emphasize traffic safety. Commissioner Dunlap advised that he and Deputy Director Campbell have drafted language to amend the setback requirement and will request a future agenda item at the appropriate point in the meeting. Roy Englebrecht, 2012 Vista Cajon, felt the Planning Commission and City Council have given away Newport Beach's billion dollar views. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Commissioner Weigand requested a continuance of Item Number 2 in order to obtain more information. Chair Koetting suggested the Commission obtain public comment for Item Number 2 and then consider continuing it. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand to continue Item Number 2, Ginsberg Residence Coastal Development Permit and Variance. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that Commissioners can offer a motion to continue at the current time or once an item is brought before the Commission. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Chair Koetting announced the order of agenda items will be Item 3, 4, and 2. 1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/9/2017 VI. ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the draft minutes of the October 19, 2017 meeting with Mr. Mosher's comments. AYES: Koetting, Zak, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 GINSBERG RESIDENCE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE (PA2016-170) Site Location: 2607 Ocean Boulevard Summary: A Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a new 4,500 -square -foot, single-family residence and a 684 -square -foot, three -car garage and a Variance request to allow the residence to: 1) exceed the maximum floor area; 2) encroach into the 10 -foot rear yard setback along Way Lane, 3) encroach into the 10 -foot front yard setback along Ocean Boulevard; 4) exceed the height limit for an elevator shaft and portions of the roof deck guardrail; and 5) provide open volume within the required setback areas. The new residence building height will not exceed Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb elevation height limit. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Article 19, of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3, (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2069 approving Variance No. VA2016-005 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-080. Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung reported the applicant proposes demolition of the existing single-family home and construction of a new 4,500 -square -foot single-family home with a roof deck and a 683 -square -foot, three - car garage for a total of 5,183 square feet. The project is located on a bluff above China Cove in Corona del Mar. Existing site improvements consist of a 2,260 -square -foot, three-story single-family home built in 1948. The existing home encroaches 3 feet into the 10 -foot front setback and 3 feet into the 4 -foot side setback and has a 0 -foot setback at the rear. The subject property has a General Plan Land Use and Coastal Land Use designation of Single -Unit Residential Detached. Staff found the project consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan because there is no change in density or use and it complies with policies for public views. Staff discussed the proposed variance. The applicant requests a variance for setbacks, height, open volume area, and floor area. The required front and rear setbacks are 10 feet; the side setback is 4 feet. The buildable area at the narrowest point of the lot is approximately 15 feet wide. The buildable area is based on required setbacks and would yield a residence of approximately 2,865 square feet. The applicant proposes a 3 -foot front setback, a 0 -foot rear setback, and 4 -foot side setbacks. The buildable area based on proposed setbacks would yield a residence of approximately 5,184 square feet. The proposed elevator shaft and guardrail will exceed the 29 -foot height limit. The house, including the elevator shaft, is approximately 4 feet below the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb elevation height limit. The existing private walkway to the residence is located within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way. The property owner is required to apply for an encroachment 2of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/9/2017 permit for the walkway. Based on proposed and required setbacks, the square footage of open volume area exceeds the code required amount. The applicant proposes a portion of the open volume be located within the required setback area. A Coastal Development Permit is required due to the variance request. The proposed project has no impact on public view and public access. Staff received public comments expressing concerns and in opposition to the project. The majority of public comments indicated the project does not comply with development standards, impacts public views, and does not conform to the neighborhood character. Staff recommends Planning Commission conduct the public hearing; find the project exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, under Class 3; and approve the application with conditions. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries, Associate Planner Ung clarified that the top of the elevator shaft is 4 inches below the Ocean Boulevard curb height. The elevator shaft and guardrail exceed the height limit. The public view on Ocean Boulevard was clarified. There is no restriction on looking down on a structure below the curb line. The variance applies to building height rather than public view. In response to Vice Chair Zak's questions, Deputy Director Campbell explained that staff determines whether any component of a structure that exceeds height limits blocks the view and is detrimental. The entire house is below the curb line. The top of the elevator shaft may be visible when looking down toward the water. Staff considered the size of the elevator shaft and did not believe it to be a significant obstruction of the view. In reply to Chair Koetting's query, Associate Planner Ung demonstrated the property lines and reviewed the cross-section showing the Ocean Boulevard curb. The elevator is not shown in this view. In answer to Commissioner Kramer's questions, Associate Planner Ung advised that staff has worked with the applicant to relocate the elevator shaft; however, pushing the elevator toward the bluff will result in additional excavation of the bluff. Staff asked the applicant to consider an alternative design that would reduce the height of the elevator shaft; however, the applicant felt the current location was optimal for the floor plan of the home. Commissioner Dunlap suggested the elevator not ascend to the fourth floor. The plans have stairs to the fourth floor. In response to Vice Chair Zak's inquiries, Associate Planner Ung indicated the applicant is proposing a 7 -foot encroachment into the front setback. The zero setback at the rear remains the same. The floor area calculation is based upon the proposed setbacks. The existing home does not have any variances. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Todd Nicholson, project builder, reported he reduced the original project because of neighborhood and staff concerns. The immediate neighbors expressed concerns about construction, the construction period, amount of excavation, and amount of disruption. To eliminate construction traffic on Way Lane, he had proposed use of the existing walkway to the property. The applicant and property owner met with 15 neighbors at a community meeting in September and revised the project further. The elevator can be relocated to comply with the height limit, but it will require more excavation. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Nicholson noted 10,000 -square -foot homes surround the property. The lot is challenging. Meeting with staff and neighbors improved the project. The applicant mailed notice to all neighbors in China Cove, held an all -day open house, and talked with neighbors both before and after the open house. The applicant worked with staff to develop a construction management plan. Associate Planner Ung reported Public Works has reviewed and approved the construction management plan, which is attached to the staff report. Commissioner Weigand reported ex parte communications with members of the community but not with the applicant. All other Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. 3of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1119/2017 John Ramirez, the applicant's representative, advised that a community meeting was held on September 9, 2017. He reviewed the requested variance, the sizes of the lot and home, and a vicinity map. Family members will be visiting the home for extended periods of time and may need the elevator to access the fourth floor. Even if the elevator is relocated toward the China Cove ramp, the outside appearance of the elevator height will not change. The applicant chose to seek Commission direction regarding the elevator. The distance from the property line to the front curb of Ocean Boulevard is 60 feet horizontally. There is no public sidewalk on the ramp or on the seaside portion of Ocean Boulevard. The public sidewalk is located on the opposite side of Ocean, which is probably another 60 feet away. Site constraints include a 35 -foot grade difference and a lot depth of 35 feet. The entire home does not encroach into every setback. The proposed home will utilize the walls of the original home. The elevator shaft will exceed the height limit by approximately 14 feet. The narrow lot and required setbacks significantly impact the buildable area. Mr. Ramirez discussed State law which requires cities to make all findings to grant variances. By implementing the variance process through the Zoning Code, the applicant is, in effect, complying with the Local Coastal Plan. True floor area is another measure of compatibility and consistency with the character of the community and the nature of development in the vicinity. Homes in the area have higher and lower FARs than the project. A home located on a traditional -sized lot on one of the flower named streets in Corona del Mar could have an FAR of 7,300 square feet. Pushing the elevator in will disproportionately impact neighbors. The home at 2711 has an elevator height of 61 feet. He shared a rendering of the top of the roof screen, which screens the elevator. The applicant needs a coastal development permit because of the variance request. The project is located within a categorical exclusion area. By virtue of a variance approval, the project complies with the Local Coastal Plan. The property does not provide or inhibit access to the beach and is more than 200 feet from the nearest public beach; therefore, the project will not impact coastal resources in the area. Commissioner Kramer stated he could make the findings for the variances with the exception of the elevator height. The applicant can maintain the current elevator location and limit the elevator to three stops or relocate the elevator to reduce the height. Daren Ginsberg, property owner, agreed to either relocate the elevator or limit it to three stops. He will speak with the contractor to determine which option is easier to construct. The proposed elevator shaft would not block the view. Mr. Ramirez requested the Commission's motion include a requirement for the applicant to reduce the height to comply with the Code. With that language, the applicant can work with staff to revise plans. Mr. Ginsberg indicated the proposed house is not large by neighborhood standards. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Ramirez advised that the walkway has evolved into a private walkway and access to the property. Because Code Enforcement staff viewed the walkway as an attractive nuisance, the applicant secured it with a fence and gate. The walkway is currently located in the City right-of- way. The applicant is working with Public Works Department on an extended encroachment permit. Commissioner Dunlap commented on the applicant not contacting Commissioners to view the property. The neighbor's letter expressed warm, rather than emphatic, support for the project. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, Mr. Ramirez indicated the privacy screens comply with the height requirement. Associate Planner Ung concurred. John Cummings, 2600 Ocean Boulevard, remarked that Associate Planner Ung did not inform him of the height variance in their conversation about the project. He supported reducing the height to comply with the Code. Martha Peyton, 212 1/2 Fernleaf, expressed concern about the bulk of the home. The applicant is requesting 80 percent more floor area than allowed by right. The proposed residence is completely out of proportion to the site. Susan Skinner opposed the size of the project. The size of the home would be more appropriate at 3,800 square feet. The Commission cannot grant a variance that will provide a special privilege. 4of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1119/2017 Jim Mosher referred to letters from the public. Some of the cross-sections show portions of the sloped roofs exceeding 29 feet. The roof screen appears to block the view. Mr. Ramirez misinformed the Commission regarding the effect of the Local Coastal Program. The Commission has no authority to alter setbacks in the Local Coastal Program. The granting of a prior variance is not relevant to granting a variance for this project. Mr. Ramirez explained that the relevance of a prior variance applies to the same property. The requested variance is not a special privilege because other homes in the area have received similar variances. The LCP is implemented in part by the Zoning Code. He reiterated the FAR allowed on a similarly sized lot located on a flower street. The exhibit notes that the cross-sections are for reference only. The applicant and staff worked on the roof heights to ensure their compliance. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Deputy Director Campbell reported Commissioners must decide if the granting of a variance in this instance will not be a special privilege. The provisions of the Municipal Code are the pertinent provisions. Title XXI does not contain a variance provision; therefore, staff made an interpretation and utilized Title XX variance procedures. If the Commission can make the findings for the variances, then the Commission can make a determination of consistency with the LCP. Chair Koetting remarked that this project exemplified the benefit of story poles. Commissioner Kleiman concurred with Commissioner Kramer's comments regarding a height variance. She requested staff review the construction management plan closely and incorporate more stringent language regarding construction parking in public spaces. In reply to Commissioner Kramer's inquiry, Deputy Director Campbell advised that the resolution does not contain a condition of approval for a construction management plan. The construction management plan is part of the project description. Commissioner Kramer felt it should be integrated into the conditions of approval. He noted the plan was prepared by the applicant. Commissioner Kramer requested the construction management plan be included in the conditions of approval because the applicant has to agree to and sign the conditions of approval. Any additional requirements should be incorporated prior to issuance of a building permit. Vice Chair Zak could not make findings to support a variance for the height. A building could not be constructed on this lot without encroaching into setbacks. He could not support use of the setbacks to establish a new FAR. Commissioner Weigand would not support the project without additional community input. He concurred with installation of story poles. The height will impact the view of people utilizing the China Cove ramp. In response to Commissioner Kramer's query, Commissioner Weigand explained that he had requested a continuance of the item prior to Commissioner Kramer's arrival at the meeting. Vice Chair Zak commented that previous Commissions set a precedent for granting variances for properties in China Cove. The proposed home is too large for the context of the neighborhood. Chair Koetting agreed that the bulk and mass of the proposed home is not compatible with the area. He could agree to a continuance to allow the applicant to work with staff to refine the project. Construction staging along Ocean compounds the issues. Comparison of this home to nearby homes is not appropriate because those lots are larger than the project site. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to continue the item to a date uncertain. In answer to Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Ramirez requested a continuance to a January meeting. Commissioners and staff discussed upcoming meetings and agenda items to determine a date when the item can return to the Commission. 5of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/9/2017 Amended Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to continue the item to a date certain of February 8, 2018. Commissioner Kramer believed the applicant could refine the project in a much shorter time. Mr. Nicholson suggested the applicant could remove the request for the height variance to facilitate the project returning at a sooner time. Alternate Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Article 19; and to adopt Resolution No. 2069 approving Variance No. VA2016-005 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-080 with deletion of the height variance request and incorporation of a more robust construction management plan, which staff must review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. Vote on the Alternate Motion AYES: Kramer, Kleiman NOES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Lowrey ABSTAIN: Zak ABSENT: None After discussion, the Commission agreed to a date certain of December 7, 2017, with the applicant to address the height, the construction management plan, FAR, and story poles. Vote on the Amended Motion AYES: Koetting, Zak, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 IRVINE AVENUE CHIROPRACTIC FACILITY USE PERMIT (PA2017-171) Site Location: 20341 Irvine Avenue (Unit 131) Summary: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow operation of a chiropractic (medical) office within an existing professional office park. The subject site is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan within the Professional and Administrative Office District. Medical office is not listed as an allowed use; however, a conditional use permit may be approved for an unlisted use if it is determined to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Professional and Administrative Office District. The chiropractic facility would occupy approximately 2,225 square feet and operate from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2070 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-024. Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland reported the site is located within the Santa Ana Heights specific plan area in the Jetty Office Park. Staff is presenting the item to the Commission because the specific plan does not list medical office as a permitted or prohibited use. The subject building is located at the back of the site and away from residential uses to the northeast. The chiropractic facility will occupy approximately 2,225 square feet and will operate during typical office hours. Patients will typically spend an hour at the office. Three doctors will utilize the site on a rotating basis of approximately 28 hours each. The existing 300 -space, surface parking lot will accommodate the proposed use. Potential future tenants will not be restricted or conditioned to the same limited hours of operation; however, Staff believes this use is appropriate. The Professional Administrative Office District contains a provision stating that conditional use permits can be issued for an unlisted use if it is determined to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the district. Staff believes the proposed medical office is consistent with the purpose and intent of the district and can make the 6of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/9/2017 findings for a conditional use permit. Facts supporting the findings are that operations will be similar to a regular office use, especially a moderate intensity office use; a medical office is expressly allowed within the General Plan designation of general commercial office; there is adequate parking for a medical office; and there are adequate buffers to residential uses. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit UP2017- 024. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Assistant Planner Westmoreland indicated the Irvine Ranch Market is not within the jurisdiction of Newport Beach. Commissioner Dunlap noted an existing chiropractic office a block from the proposed site. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Assistant Planner Westmoreland understood the educational facility in the development has not had any Code Enforcement issues. Deputy Director Campbell stated the property owner has authorized the application. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Philip Greer, representing the applicant, appreciated Staffs recommendation for approval. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's query, Mr. Greer advised that the current facility in Costa Mesa no longer meets their needs. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, Assistant Planner Westmoreland explained that she utilized data from the previous educational facility application to demonstrate adequate parking for this medical use. The net parking increase is two spaces over the existing use. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 and to adopt Resolution No. 2070 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-024. AYES: Koetting, Zak, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer ITEM NO. 4 76 STATION EXPANSION (PA2017-067) Site Location: 1461 Superior Avenue Summary: A conditional use permit to expand an existing convenience store with a 1,668 -square -foot first floor addition and 2,219 -square -foot second floor addition with some deviations from landscaping requirements. The total convenience store area will be 4,416 square feet. The existing carwash and 12 fueling dispensers are to remain unchanged. The applicant requests for the convenience store and fueling station to operate 24 hours daily. The carwash hours of operation are to remain unchanged at 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. Also included in the request is the addition of a Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer and Wine) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License. If approved, this Conditional Use Permit would supersede Use Permit No. UP3566. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2071 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-007. 7of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/9/2017 Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager reported the subject 76 station is located at the west corner of Superior and Placentia Avenue in the commercial neighborhood zoning district. The site is surrounded on three sides by residential uses. Across the street is a bank in an office zoning district. The applicant requests a Type 20 ABC license for off -sale beer and wine and an extension of hours of operation to 24 hours and expansion of the convenience store to 4,562 square feet. The correct square footage of the first -floor addition is 1,695 and the total square footage is 4,562. Staffs analysis was based on the correct figures. The 76 station was approved to operate as a fueling station, convenience store, and car wash in 1995 between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and midnight for the convenience store and fueling station, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for the car wash. Currently, the store and service station are closed by 10:00 p.m. The applicant has not proposed changes to the car wash or to the 12 fuel dispensers. The car wash will continue the previously approved hours of operation. The second -story of the addition will be used as a private office and storage only. Parking for the service station is required at a rate of one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, including the waiting area for the car wash. The site has 23 parking spaces, which are provided according to the permitted site plan. This is accomplished by adding five spaces in front of the expanded convenience store. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan. The total first floor area contains 2,343 square feet in the store and lounge area. The building height is 32 feet to the top of the flat roof, which complies with development standards. All new signage will be required to comply with the Zoning Code and may be subject to a comprehensive sign program. She provided a materials board for Commission review. The applicant requests relief from four landscape requirements: the landscape at the corner between the two driveways; some planting area along interior property lines; required landscape within 20 feet of the front property line; and the quantity of landscape materials adjacent to Placentia Avenue. Because little site work is proposed, there are few opportunities to add landscaping without affecting the current circulation. Staff believes findings can be made to support the modifications. The Police Department has reviewed and does not oppose the request for 24-hour operations subject to inclusion of conditions of approval. Staff recommends the hours of operation be limited to 6:00 a.m. to midnight due to the proximity to residential zoning districts and uses, which is consistent with the original approval and is later than the current closing time of 10:00 p.m. Staff has included a condition of approval for a one-year review to determine whether the hours of operation are compatible with residential uses. The applicant has agreed to the midnight closing time. Staff recommends approval of the project. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Director Jurjis advised that one handicap parking space is required per 25 parking spaces. Assistant Planner Crager indicated the site plan reflects all parking spaces. One parking space on the site plan is easy to overlook as it contains written information. The project lacks approximately 40 square feet of landscaping at an intersection, and staff believes the shortage can be justified based on circulation. Landscape area adjacent to interior property lines is missing in two locations in order to provide parking spaces. Planting material adjacent to Placentia Avenue has not been provided because of the driveway. Landscaping within the first 20 feet of a street property line has been omitted so as not to affect established parking and circulation. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's queries, Assistant Planner Crager responded that the existing project does not meet the landscape requirements. With the proposed addition, the applicant would be required to meet current landscape requirements. The applicant does not currently sell alcohol onsite. The proposed license will allow the sale of beer and wine only. The applicant has indicated his agreement with a closing time of midnight. The applicant has authorization to remain open until midnight but has not acted on it. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Joseph Karaki, applicant, agreed with all conditions imposed on the project and to limit the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to midnight. In answer to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Karaki explained that he is planning to remodel the car wash. The new car wash will require more storage space, for dry products, than is available on the first floor. Peggy Palmer, Kings Road, opposed the project because of crime and homeless activity in the area and a nearby convenience store. 8of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1119/2017 Sandra Hiers, Cliff Drive, opposed the project because it will negatively affect the quality of life in the area. The four parking spaces in the rear are used to detail cars rather than for parking. Jim Mosher assumed windows of the adjacent senior apartment building will face the proposed second -floor storage area. If the second -floor height is reduced, some of the windows could look over the building. Mr. Karaki remarked that the service station has served the area since 1995. The crime rate in the area is not related to alcohol. He plans to increase security measures and wishes to increase the size of the convenience store to compensate for decreased revenue from the car wash. In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Karaki indicated the rear of the building will not have windows and agreed to lower the height of the tower. Assistant Planner Crager advised that staff does not have a rear elevation. The floor plan indicates no windows on the rear of the second floor. The car wash is one story. The proposed addition complies with the 32 -foot height limit. The applicant could reduce the 32 -foot height to match the 26 -foot height. Chair Koetting felt the height was unnecessary, especially in the absence of a sign. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Assistant Planner Crager advised that staff does not have before and after photometric studies. Staff applied lighting standards to the photometric study to ensure there are no lighting effects beyond the property line. Deputy Director Campbell clarified that the Zoning Code does not specify a numeric standard. Commissioner Dunlap noted readings as high as 0.4 in the rear and wished to have a current photometric study. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiry, Assistant Planner Crager was not aware of daycare centers at Hoag Hospital. Commissioner Kleiman expressed concerns about alcohol sales adding to crime in the area; however, the Police Department is not opposed to the project. Crime statistics for this area are higher than for other areas of the City. This type of use will exacerbate crime, especially with proximity to the hospital. At Commissioner Weigand's request, Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe explained the Police Department's review of an application involving alcohol sales. The Police Department considers three factors: crime statistics, other alcohol establishments in the area, and public convenience and necessity. The third factor is based on the first two. This area is 190 percent above the average of all other areas in the City, and crime is a factor in this area; however, the majority of that crime is not related to alcohol. Only 24 percent of arrests in the area are related to alcohol. The ABC Board requires consideration of alcohol-related crime only. The area contains two other off - sale establishments. The 7/11 does have a high number of calls for service. Minute King closes at 4:00 p.m. on weekends and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and does not present a problem. Because the Police Department can consider only alcohol-related crime, it does not object to the application. Minute King sells hard liquor, beer and wine. Civilian Investigator Joe assumed the 7/11 sells only beer and wine. The 7/11 ceases sale of alcohol at 2:00 a.m. The recommended closing time of convenience stores depends on their location. Commissioner Weigand suggested alcohol sales cease at 9:00 p.m. pending the one-year review. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's queries, Assistant Planner Crager indicated the Commission can direct Commission review rather than staff review after one year. Civilian Investigator Joe explained that a DUI stop in front of a store will attach to calls for service for that specific store. A call for service may involve alcohol, but it will only be reflected in alcohol-related crime if an arrest is made. Tom Fredericks, Irvine Terrace, opposed late-night alcohol sales. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. In response to Vice Chair Zak's questions, Assistant Planner Crager reported a notice was posted onsite and published in the newspaper. The mailed notices provide notice to individuals within a radius of 300 feet. Motion made by Vice Chair Zak and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue the item for the applicant to provide four-sided elevations and to work with staff regarding a time for cessation of alcohol sales. Commissioner Dunlap could support the motion but did not see a need for additional alcohol sales. 9of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/9/2017 Amended motion made by Vice Chair Zak and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue the item for the applicant to provide four-sided elevations, to reduce the height of the tower, and to work with staff regarding a time for cessation of alcohol sales and regarding expanding the first floor rather than adding a second floor. AYES: Koetting, Zak, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items 2. Status of the General Plan Update Process Community Development Director Jurjis reported a Council study session on November will kick off the General Plan Update. During the regular meeting, the Council will take formal action on the General Plan. The agenda for the December 7th meeting contains six items. The following Commission meeting is scheduled for January 18, 2018. He announced Jim Campbell as the new Deputy Director, Administrative Assistant Jennifer Biddle has taken a position in the City Manager's Office and Brittany Ramirez has joined the Community Development Department. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiry, Director Judis indicated Council action will include outreach committees for the General Plan. Chair Koetting requested staff recommend appointment of at least two Commissioners to an advisory committee for the General Plan. ITEM NO.7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Commissioner Dunlap advised that he has been working with Deputy Director Campbell and Fire Department personnel on the issue of setbacks and emergency access to properties. Deputy Director Campbell reported an agenda item will be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at some future date. Reducing allowed encroachments into the side yard would require a Code amendment. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None IX. ADJOURNMENT -9:51 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, November 30, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, November 30, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. Peter Koetting, Chairman Erik Weigand, Secretary 10 of 10 Planning Commission - December 7, 2017 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of November 9, 2017 December 7, 2017, Planning Commission Item 1 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in str keom-t underline format. Page 1, Item IV, first sentence: "Jim Mosher, 2210 Private Road, related remarks regarding staff not being an objective third patty made at the applicant's meeting for the Koll Center project." Page 2, Item VII: as indicated at the end of page 1, Public Hearing Item #2 was not heard at the point shown in the draft minutes, but rather after #3 and #4. It would seem logical, and less confusing, to report the items in the minutes in the order they actually occurred. Among other things, that would make it more clear why Commissioner Kramer, who (per the roll call on page 1) arrived at 7:35 p.m. was absent for #3 and #4, but present and voting when discussion began on #2. Page 3, paragraph 3 from end: "Tedtlel Tom Nicholson, project builder, reported he reduced the original project because of neighborhood and staff concerns." (see Nicholson Companies website) Page 4, paragraph 2, sentence 5: "A home located on a traditional -sized lot on one of the flower named streets in Corona del Mar could have an FAR of 7,300 square feet." [this could be what the applicant's representative said, but he presumably meant "floor area" rather than "FAR"] Page 5, paragraph 2: "Mr. Ramirez explained that the relevance irrelevance of a prior variance applies only to the same property." Page 5, paragraph 4, sentence 3: "Title X98 21 does not contain a variance provision; therefore, staff made an interpretation and utilized Title SAL 20 variance procedures." Page 6, line 4 from end: "Potential future tenants will not be restricted or conditioned to the same limited hours of operation; however, Sta€l staff believes this use is appropriate." [Is something missing after the "however, ..."?] Page 7, line 1: "Sandra Hiers Avres, Cliff Drive, opposed the project because it will negatively affect the quality of life in the area." Page 10, Item 6, first three sentences: "Community Development Director Jurjis reported a Council study session on November 14 will kick off the General Plan Update. During the regular meeting, the Council will take formal action on the General Plan. The agenda for the December 7th Planning Commission meeting contains six items." Page 10, after Item IX: "The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, November 30 31 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, November 30,?, 2017, at 3:30 p.m."