Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2200 W OCEAN FRONTIIIIIIII IIII �I IIIII IIIIIII III IIIIII IIII III IIII*NEW FILE* 2200 W Ocean Front COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS � •Telephone: (714) 644-3200 Plan Check No: By:Genia Garcia Associate Planner By Chrc isty Teague Associate Planner By:Marc Myers, Associate Planner By: ,Date: 3-3-4/5 Address: ZZOD W Districting Map No.D7 Land Use Element Page No. 'Corrections Required: 1 Legal Description: Lot �_ Block Z 2 Section Tract Resubdivision required to combine lots or portions of lots when construction or alterations are in excess of $20,000. covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached 4 document and return to me. Cp yy] e.(rr/!GC Rewode_i Lot Size 25x 13s - 33�5� 5 "P (o �a Ke.. ou.k ;es+u0y-�f /3 T 0-1 Zone / RM-a0 71 Yf _ Proposed Use ! Ke (' 50-3 �I Required Setbacks Z'7-7-7 OIL, 1�/ Front (/ ,t Rear i0 / (5 / 7rGi�a%_PiU4. oi: Right side Left Side D� FAR WORKSHEET Lot area (site area sg.ft.): 0 9 I YA aX fee Ile3535- Coeld. 3 sq.ft. Base Development Allocation (BDA): Comm sq.ft. [0.5 x site area sq.ft., unless otherwise specified in Land Use Element] FAR permitted, without variance: (A) Comm res okQ Square footage permitted: Comm res ukQ sq.ft. [(A) x site area sq.ft.] Maximum FAR allowed with variance: (B) Comm res okQ Maximum square footage allowed: comm res sq.ft. [(B) x site area sq.ft.] PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: (C) Base FAR use sq.ft. (D) Reduced FAR use sq.ft. (E) Maximum FAR use sq.ft. (F) TOTAL SQ.FT. [C+D+E] sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. PROPOSED FAR: [ F + site area sq.ft. ] PROPOSED WEIGHTED DEVELOPMENT: FAR Use Category Weighting Factor Weighted Sq.Ft. (G) (H) ( G x H ) sq.ft. Base X 1.00 sq.ft. sq.ft. Reduced X 1.67 sq.ft. sq.ft. Maximum X 0.50 sq.ft. TOTAL WEIGHTED SQ.FT.(May not exceed BDA) i�K'�/ Provide tissue overlay of calculations to verify provided square footage. -k- Required Parking C% B P� V/- 3 1525 Proposed parking (Indicate number of stalls provided) Total On -Site Parking /:> p k— r Z91— V p�js �? 15� Standard Compact I In -lieu Parking 1X 1 VIM "`61M vw(Lts) W Dimension building height as measured from natural grade) to average and maximum JJ roof height .r Show natural grade line on all elevations , Show all rooftop mechanical equipment and dimension from grade directly dbelow, _ga,e- - Indicate location of trash containers on site plan. Number of Stories Qk= llogr Plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences, etc. ;n` relation to the property line. ►'eta San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Please indicate any discretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate the attachedt excerpt of minutes and list of findings and conditions into the blualine drawings approval letter into the blualine drawings Modifications Committee: Indicate Approval No. on Bluelines Modification required for 1aP��3j pee Permits No. Variances No. Resubdivision/tract: No. _._ Site Plan Reviews No. Amendmants No. Other d P�D�iG -I'b Public Works: 3S ?JS Easement/Encroachment Permit Gvna(. �' "7j �• F'. Subdivision Engineer Traffic Engineer Gore of . 11 I4. 10• 35 �5 Approval of Landscape Plans Building Departments Grading Engineer Parka Departments Approval of Landscape Plans (Notes Pile 3 sets of _ Coastal Development Pe Nok : Pµb►;G. kvoyllks a. owed Aper -e" fK) v✓ fp pVvt1 }` 155Vawu. is floor, and elevations) Wvar/Exemption: No. t* ', Effeotive dates REMARKS: ar-ov i der I fnam ow ✓Ief ::5 1( Gt� �u e--o-4n4 Yr s PtA e m44&zR. I Ci v';ea 4 �� rimer Cov�cQ i�"ov1 !4. a( k+ 1 . l !! T gvee 75'70 Gx�=sl,Yv� pe-riYiv� veal I:r be r'Cwpile ft; 64-K" 6h4 re yv 1'I I b�}- -SpKii %e.Com-e, h,� 11 A4ii YPtat - �� NOTE: it is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above* if you have questions regarding your application, please contact me at (714) $44- 3200. lORMs\COMM—SON.COR Rev. 2/94 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT #3535 2200 W. Ocean Front CONDITION DEPARTMENT ACTION 01. Substantial Conformance Planning Plan Review 942. Take-out windows removed Planning Plan Review Larger or change operational Plan Review characteristics amend U.P. Planning Intent Letter ,$jW. FAR 0.91 max Planning Plan Review 0. Improvements constructed Public Works Plan Review W. Improvements guarantee Public Works Plan Review Gr. 5' corner cutoff dedicated Public Works Plan Review Planning Plan Review . '10' alley setback, except trash enclosure Planning Plan Review %7. Sidewalk improvements Public Works Encroachment Permit Plan Review &0. Entry doors not to swing Building Plan Review e4gek.. w/7) fc out onto Ocean Front or 22nd Planning Plan Review 11. Oraffic Control Plan, Traffic Plan Review ,/Pedestrian Facilities Planning Intent Letter t12. Utilities Undergrounded Building Plan Review oa3. Coastal Commission Approval Planning Receipt of Approval e14. Light Spillage Minimized Planning Plan Review Intent Letter .15. If 75% perimeter walls removed Use Permit is null and void. Planning Intent Letter ✓16. P.C. May Add or Modify Conds. Planning No Action t4?. 2N YV p*v k 1 �'P AA-�00 , ), A-r,f4ol,7 i'o pro cu s5 or � ��d Mr. & Mrs. Francis Ursini 18 Hummingbird Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 March 20, 1995 City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: Christy Teague To Whom It May Concern: I, Fran Ursini, Owner of 2200 West Oceanfront (Lot 1, Block 22, Newport Beach Tract) fully intend to comply with the Conditions of Approval of Use Permit #3515, requested by the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. Sincerely, Fran Ursini Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1994 Agenda Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT. Use Permit No. 3535 (Public Hearing) Request to permit alterations to an existing commercial building which is nonconforming with regards to Floor Area Ratio and off-street parking provisions. The proposed alterations include the renovation and expansion of an existing take-out restaurant, the renovation of a portion of the existing retail space, and the request to demolish more than 50 percent of the existing walls of the building. The proposed alterations will result in a decrease in the prorated development intensity of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the construction of a new trash enclosure that encroaches 5± feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 22, Newport Beach, located at 2200 West Ocean Front, on the northwesterly corner of West Ocean Front and 22nd Street, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Francis Ursini, Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant Application This application involves a request to permit alterations to an existing commercial building which is nonconforming with regards to Floor Area Ratio and off-street parking provisions, on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial' area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposed alterations include the renovation and expansion of an existing take-out restaurant, the renovation of a portion of the existing retail space, and the request to demolish more than 50 percent of the existing walls of the building. The proposed alterations will result in a decrease in the prorated development intensity of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the construction of a new trash enclosure that encroaches 5± feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. In accordance with Section 20.83.030 C 3 of the Municipal Code, structures which are nonconforming with regard to permitted gross floor area, and major alterations are proposed, require the securing of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Modification procedures are set forth in Section 20.81 of the Municipal Code. TO: Planning Commission - 2. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The subject commercial project is a permitted use within this designation. The Land Use Element specifies a land use intensity limit of 0.5/1.0 FAR for commercial development. The existing structure has a FAR of 0.99 with a floor area of 3,100± sq.ft. Since the applicant is proposing to retain a portion of the existing building's exterior walls, he is not required to provide the required parking for the commercial square footage. This is discussed further in the body of the staff report. Section 20.07.040 of the Municipal Code provides that land use intensities be designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and that gross floor area shall be prorated according to the type of use. The Code goes on to state that the base development allocation shall not be exceeded by the sum of the weighted square footage of each particular use. The weighted square footage of the existing project is 4,278± sq.ft. and the weighted square footage of the proposed project will be 4,166± sq.ft., a decrease of 112± sq.ft.. In accordance with the provisions of the California Coastal Act, Use Permit No. 3535 is a discretionary application which requires the approval of the Coastal Commission. Background At its meeting of March 17,1977, the Planning Commission voted (5 Ayes, I No,1 Absent) to deny Use Permit No. 1823, a request to permit the construction of second floor room additions so as to expand The Surfer take-out restaurant facility on the subject property. The request included a request to waive all of the required parking spaces in conjunction with the proposed development. An excerpt of the minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's information. At its meeting of October 10, 1991, the Planning Commission, in its consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 91-3, voted (4 Ayes,1 No, 2 Absent) not to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 91-3(E), a request to increase the allowed Floor Area Ratio from 0.5/0.75 to 1.30 in the McFadden Square area in order to allow remodeling and addition to the existing, nonconforming retail building on the site in association with seismlc upgrades required by Chapter 15.07 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This proposal was a request to allow the expansion of the commercial take-out restaurant use on the subject property to the second floor. An excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes is attached TO: Planning Commission - 3. for Commission review. At its meeting of October 28, 1991, the City Council voted (6 Ayes, 1 No) to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission and did not initiate that portion of General Plan Amendment 91-3(E) which involved the subject property located at 2200 West Ocean Front (see attached excerpt of the City Council minutes). Staff had suggested, at that time, that this property be considered for a change in land use to residential, which would be consistent with the other properties on the block. However, the applicant was not interested in such a change in the land use designation. Staff is still of the opinion that perhaps this property should be considered for a change in land use to residential. At it§ meeting of October 22, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3462, a request to permit alterations and additions to the existing commercial building which is nonconforming relative to floor area ratio and off-street parking on the subject property. The proposed construction included the addition of a residential dwelling unit on the second floor and the conversion of an existing retail space to residential parking on the ground, floor. The proposal also included a request to demolish more than 50 percent of the existing exterior walls while maintaining the nonconforming floor area ratio and parking for the existing restaurant. The applicant did not exercise that approval and the current submittal is a similar project with the exception that the second floor residential unit has been eliminated and less existing commercial square footage is to be eliminated, whereas the previous approval was converting a portion of the existing commercial space to a two car residential garage. An excerpt of the minutes of that meeting is attached for the Commission's information. Subiect Proverty and Surround nne Land Uses The subjectpropertyis currently developed with a single story commercial building occupied by a take-out restaurant and three small retail tenant spaces. To the northwest, encompassing the rest of this block up to 23rd Street, are two-family and multi -family residential uses; to the northeast, across a 10 foot wide alley, is a parking lot and a commercial building; to the southeast, across 22nd Street, is a two story building with commercial uses on the first floor and apartment units on the second floor; and to the southwest, across the West Ocean Front sidewalk is a Municipal parking lot and public beach with the Pacific Ocean beyond. Analysis The applicant is proposing to extensively renovate the existing commercial building on the site by demolishing over 50%, but less than 75% of the existing exterior perimeter walls (measured by area) and construct a commercial development on the property. Based on the submitted plans, the project includes a ground floor take-out restaurant containing approximately 1,850± square feet of gross floor area (not including exterior walls), two retail tenant spaces of 450 square feet each and provides no parking -for the commercial use, There will also be a trash enclosure which will encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to'the alley. The following outline sets forth the major characteristics of the proposed project. TO: Planning Commission - 4. Land Area: (25 ft. x 125 ft.) 3,125± sq.ft. Maximum Building Bulk Floor Area Permitted for Mixed Use: 5,000.0 sq.ft. Maximum Building Bulk Floor Area Ratio Permitted for Mixed Use: 1.60 FAR Proposed Commercial Floor Area: (gross) Proposed Commercial Floor Area Ratio: Required Commercial Parking (for proposed project): Take-out Restaurant (1 space/50 sq.ft.+ one/each employee): Retail Space A 450 sq.ft. Retail Space B 450 sg.ft. Total 900 sq.ft. + 250 = 3.6 or Y Total Required Proposed Commercial Parking Spaces: Permitted Building Height: 21856.0± sq.ft. 0.91 FAR 37 spaces plus space/employee 4. spaces 41 spaces plus one space/employee 0 spaces 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District Proposed Building Height: 21* ft., maximum height to top of ridge Setbacks: Required Proposed Front (West Ocean Front): 0 ft. 0 ft. on ground floor commercial. Southerly Side: 0 ft. 0 ft. Northerly Side: 0 ft. 0 ft. Rear (Alley): 10 ft. 5 ft. to trash enclosure; 10 feet to building. As presented by the applicant's architect, the proposed renovation of the existing building falls under the definition of a "CATEGORY 4 ALTERATION, Major alteration including, by way of illustration, alteration of up to seventy-five percent (75%) of the structural members or replacement of up to seventy-five percent (75%) of the perimeter walls (by area) of the structure within any twelve (12) month period.". The total area of existing TO: Planning Commission - 5. exterior walls to be replaced, according to the plans submitted by the applicant, is 52±% based on the current exterior structural wall areasl of 1,562.5 sq.ft. for the north and south walls and 312.5 sq.ft. for the east and west walls. The attached elevation profiles/demolition plan indicates a 79 foot long solid wall along the interior side property line which is to remain. The applicant has not provided information as to how he intends to retain the wall during construction. With the retention of the interior property line wall the amount of exterior walls to be demolished totals approximately 52± Vo,. This is considered within the Category 4 Alteration definition. Any building where over 75% of the perimeter walls are removed would be considered a demolished structure, and all nonconforming FAR and parking would become null and void. Interpretation of Alteration The Zoning Code makes no reference to treatment of the roof or,foundation of the building as exterior walls. If the roof and/or foundation are included in the calculations, the percentage of building being altered will vary greatly from those presented. The applicant, has not provided information regarding the extent of changes to the existing foundation. Staff has interpreted the "perimeter walls" to include only the vertical exterior walls and not any horizontal exterior facades such as roofs or foundations which, in essence, further define the exterior envelope of a building. However, should the Planning Commission disagree with staffs interpretation and be of the opinion that the proposed extensive demolition is not consistent with the legislative intent of Chapter 20.83, then staff should be directed to review language in Chapter 20.83 for clarification or amendment. Ultimately, the question posed by this application is whether or not it is the intent of the Ordinance to allow a person to retain only portions of walls of a building in order to retain the nonconforming status of that building; in this particular case, to perpetuate the nonconforming FAR and parking. Proposed Floor Area Ratio The Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan specifies that the floor area of the commercial floor area is limited to between 0.25 and 0.5 FAR. However, since the commercial square footage already exists and is being reduced, Section 20.07.044 of the Municipal Code provides that lawfully existing uses in buildings constructed prior to October 25, 1988 may continue, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 20.07. 'It should be noted that for the purpose of calculating the percentage of walls to be demolished, the footage of door and window openings is deleted from the calculations. It should also be noted that if the openings were included in the calculations the amount of walls to be demolished would total 72%±, which is also less than the permitted 75% allowed by Category 4 Alteration. TO: Planning Commission - 6. Off -Street Parkins Requirement The existing structure was constructed prior to the time off-street parking was required. In conjunction with this applicption, staff has calculated the parking requirements of the existing uses on the subject property in order to determine the number of parking spaces to credit the applicant. Section 20.83.050 B of the Municipal Code provides that the lawful use of land or buildings or both in commercial districts which do not meet current parking requirements, which use was in existence prior to adoption of parking requirements, may be continued or changed to a use requiring the same or less on -site parking, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 20.83. Inasmuch as the increase in the gross square footage entails the filling in of the existing notches in the building and the area is less than 50 square feet, only one additional parking would be required for the take-out restaurant portion of the facility. However, based on the above requirements and the parking requirements as credited for the previous retail square footage which is to be demolished (250 square feet is to be removed which would require one parking space), the overall parking requirement would remain the same Staff is of the opinion that the same parking demand as a result of the proposed change to the structure would be consistent with Section 20.83 of the Municipal Code dealing with nonconforming parking situations. It is also staffs opinion that the existing take-out restaurant currently serves people who are visiting, working or living in the area. The approval of this application does not allow the existing take-out restaurant to re -open or be occupied without first having a separate use permit approved by the Planning Commission. The appropriate condition has been incorporated into the attached Exhibit iW1. Existing Take-out Windows The plans submitted by the applicant indicate that the existing take-out windows open onto the public sidewalks on West Ocean Front and 22nd Street, however, the proposed plans indicate that that wall will be demolished and the windows will be deleted. The appropriate condition of approval has been incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A" to restrict any new take-out windows, unless said windows are approved by the Planning Commission. The Public Works Department has indicated that the existing building corner at the intersection of the West Ocean Front sidewalk and the 22nd Street sidewalk creates a sight distance hazard and recommended that the applicant dedicate a five foot corner cutoff at that building corner to alleviate the hazard. The applicant has incorporated that requirement into the design. The appropriate condition has been incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A". The application includes a request for a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a TO: Planning Commission - 7. trash enclosure to encroach 5 feet into the required 10.foot alley setback. The Traffic Engineering Division and the Public Works Department have approved the location of the proposed trash enclosure as submitted so as to improve the accessibility to the garage of the neighboring property. Required Additional Findings In accordance with Section 20.83.030 C 4 of the Municipal Code: "A use permit to allow the alteration of a nonconforming structure may be approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, only if the following findings are made in addition to those findings specified in Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. a. The cost of the improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. 1 b. The cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. C. Retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. d. Retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to preserve a substantial property right." Staff has requested that the applicant furnish the Planning Commission responses to these findings. The response to these findings was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1992, in conjunction with the approval of the previous project and can be found on page 13 of the excerpt of those minutes. Conclusions and Specific Findings Section 20.80.060 provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Should the Planning Commission determine that the project meets all specified criteria and wishes to approve Use Permit No. 3535 as submitted by the applicant, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. However, should the Planning Commission disagree with staffs interpretation and be of the opinion that the. proposed extensive demolition is not consistent with the legislative intent of Chapter 20.83, the appropriate findings for denial have been included in the attached Exhibit 'B". TO: Planning Commission - 8. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By�, Javie S. Garcia Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A' Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Floor Plan of Existing Take-out Restaurant Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated March 17, 1977 for Use Permit No. 1823 Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated October 10, 1991 for General Plan Amendment No. 91-3 (E) Excerpt of the City Council Minutes dated October 28, 1991 for GPA 91-3 Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated October 22, 1992 for Use Permit No. 3462 Existing Floor/Demolition Plan, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations r.\JAY•o\uP\\orasu.sR TO: Planning Commission - 9. EXHIBIT "A' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3535 Findings: 1. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 3. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the cost of the improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. 5. That the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. 6. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. 8. That the net overall parking requirement will be reduced by one parking space in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. That the FAR of the commercial use will be reduced from 0.99 to 0.91. 10. That the proposed modification to the Zoning Code is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, given that the proposed trash enclosure encroachment into the 10 foot rear yard setback will result in improved vehicular circulation and sight distance in the alley over the current building that encroaches to the rear property line. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 3535 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. TO; Planning Commission - 10. Conditions; 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the existing take-out windows adjacent to the public sidewalks shall be removed or otherwise filled -in and shall not be reinstalled or utilized, unless a use permit is approved for use of said windows. 3. That the future tenant of the take-out restaurant space shall be subject to approval of a separate use permit prior to issuance of any building permits for tenant improvements. 4. That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 0.91 as proposed, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That a 5 foot corner cutoff at the corner of 22nd Street and West Ocean Front be dedicated to the public prior to issuance of any building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and that the proposed structure not encroach into the newly dedicated easement area. 8. That the proposed structure maintain a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley, except for the proposed trash enclosure which is permitted to encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the alley setback. 9. That any sidewalk improvements damaged during the construction of the proposed development be reconstructed to match existing. All damaged sidewalk shall be replaced in full panels as approved by the Public Works Department. All work within the public right-of-way shall be constructed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 10. That all proposed entry doors be designed so that they will not swing out onto the ocean Front or 22nd Street sidewalks. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the West Ocean Front right-of- TO: Planning Commission - 11. way. Pedestrian facilities shall be maintained at all times along the West Ocean Front frontage. 12. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 13. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits for construction or demolition, except as provided for seismic upgrade pursuant to Section 20.83.070 and Chapter 15.07 of the Municipal Code. 14. That the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. 15. That should over 75% of the existing perimeter walls be removed, the existing, structure will be considered demolished, and this use permit shall become null and void. 16. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 17. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the. date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. TO: Planning Commission - 12. EXHIBIT "B° FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR USE PERMIT NO.3535 in in 1. That the proposed commercial development is nearly twice as large as the allowable commercial restaurant allowed by strict compliance with Chapter 20.07 of the Municipal Code with regard to Floor Area Ratio. 2. That the allowed commercial development of 0.5 FAR is large enough to accommodate a viable business. 3. That the proposed development is more than a remodel of the existing building and perpetuates the nonconforming status of the existing building and therefore is not consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is not compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the cost of the improvements to be made is not minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. 5. That the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would not exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. 6. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is not necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. 7. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right. 8. The approval of Use Permit No. 3535 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. f4 VICINITY MAP \\ P-C 0. S QW r � ff Ar • -� �--� _ _�c� _ 1l3 br w-M/`Y� nt nVi C./Y .M, u A�A'e•.•-_J/1C � c -il- r - M10. M»> Lh✓I/rnNa{Is.IV. •I/ Furl P!/. F•'/ Ar F,//r MA Me! R•A TO U CITY TRI.ILER PARK OPD.0 a!P 1000 lttOJU Latl OItO, RlLHl.fltt)� u Alt (b1 It a o!P 1111 tl3oNt lOM1'O.l. 1'nu Ct A C't N W Itll INx tY% U4l Ihltftl /Af•/ lOU 641.1.4f•/ 0.%x h1 p0 y1. we.Mu 411.1f Nt[L 1 {�M 11, M•n. 1G.IV \0/.1/. R11. Jlf tde.� � 1 cfR.../• W»Il t•M•li A nm Sa � foa LtyAQ i•tltt qy IAAt /tTyl .4 a[fw\ 41 a l+ lofM1 v. frvl t h; � y n.n l �/ j�q y.l.W Mw YI wA.f (L M.ilm A�ftr •/`f �I4V. 11/.1/.i 41.I �)tI 1M�t0 �let�C-I•[.i. ......... hM tow, Ou. pqY "" '/l�i�• .... u'�i o•'S RI 010/I•,) •t 11l/III f. NIft IOr IN/WfYa /,~/N%i/'11 on 1 { t IIOC. SMr IKI,orA, M+Mi MA Mo. 00.17 /IlW ' /R61 lM1i IV N/•M/R(I{Oq //A. i•Il •SO ORD.$1•T YARDSETBXK-LOTS 1043, R- I Mr 2 ARE s•R2 >. R 2 R- oceef. R•I DISTRICTING WPORT BEACH — AOIDOULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R-R SINGLE FAMILY RERDENTAL E_I D-i -DUPLEX RESIDO AL MWIPLE RANRY JtCt k 0 O E A C N MAP ALIFORNIA MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UONT OOMMEROIAL GENERAL EONME:AL MANUFAGTURWO RESTO MULTPLE RAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT NO, 3 1 79'-0e EXISTING RESTAURANT COUATIONNTER AOF ND KITCHEGiVRESTAURANT EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN. � I _ I 2 Rg1 r sot rart� , � �!.—fly, I i � -fAKE-ouT widL>ws existing storage 'TAKe-016-1--r, NUMBER OF SEATS 30 HOURS OF OPERATION (SUMMER HOURS) A.M. EXISTING WALLS TO -BE REMOVED. 2200 OCEANFRONT • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA FRAN URSINI 2000:,W: NEWPORT BOULEVARD=. " COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 existing :storage >~cOOR PLAN LAYOUT 199 TeeMc'ayy suite 7 10 . iiomc. CA 92718 Tet 7ia 753.0201 Fax71< 753.0221 EX f511JUG SEATING I LANG LAMPERT' •ARCHITECTS-,...immumm�� • - _ 1/s�rt�-a• nOTORER-8. 1992 - - - - tt � remodeling beca-Ise he cccupanry In his Opinion t ■"�"' aty f, l Planning CommisSion discussed how the occupancy load was established and it was pointed out that occupancy was not based on the number of seats but rather by the square footage available to the public and, therefore. any expansion would Increase the occupancy load. It was also pointed out that the Fire Department set the occupancy load and an artificial occupancy could not be established by the Planning Commission. Peg Forgil, 2205 W. Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Commission to comment on the desperate need for adds tfonaI larking to the area and felt it WaS time ter people to get together and do something about the parking situation. John Shea, 2214 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Commission to commc6t on the request and the parking problems In the area and felt that the Specific Area Plan for Cannery V01age/McFadden Square should be completed before any businesses were encouraged to expand at this time. d There being no others desiring to appear and be - heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Frederickson commented on parking and efforts presently under way to establish a parkino district Which would be very time consum- ing. Me felt that because of the lack of parking in the area, any changes or new uses should be required to comply with the present pa^king requirements. Me further commented on the City's responsibility to obtain property as it becomes I available for as -king. Motion I%I I I I I I Motion xas made that Planning Ccmmission make the following findings: 1. That the restaurant addition would be detrimental to adjacent property and improve- ments in the area, since a Substantial increase to parking demand 1s proposed without provision for on -site parking. 7, I I 2, That there is eat adequate on -street parking I to the area and a waiver of the parking ,P; ..T �'� MISSIONERS 4 October 10, 1991 MiN'UTEB CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX E. 2200 West Ocean Front: A request of Francis Ursini to W amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach 2200 Wes General Plan to increase the allowed Floor Area Ratio from ocean Pr 0.5/0.75 to 1.30 in the McFadden Square area in order to Not allow remodeling and addition to an existing, non- initiate conforming retail building in association with seismic upgrades required by Chapter 15.07 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Mr. Fran Ursini,1803 Hummingbird, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ursini stated that the structure at the corner of 22nd Street and Ocean Front Boulevard is one story, and the remaining syructures in the block are two stories. He proposed that he would give the City footage off of the alley and in the front portion of the lot, and in return he would like to move the restaurant's seating area to the second floor. lie stated that he would demolish the existing building and rebuild a structure that would enhance the area. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano with respect to consideration of a duplex on the Site, Mr. Ursini replied that he intends to continue to operate the existing hamburger stand. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Ursini replied that his intent is to provide a take-out window, to have slating on the second floor, and to up -grade the menus. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Ursini explained the areas adjacent to the subject site that could be used to provide 8 to 10 parking spaces. Commissioner Gross suggested that the applicant make a study of the number of parking spaces that could be provided at the subject site before the City initiates the request. Motion Motion was made and voted on not to initiate GPA 91-3 (E). Ayes * " " " MOTION CARRIED. No Absent -30- _ � 1 CITY OF NWORT BEAC&�- MIR9ES COUNCIL tENUS � VANO\1�� October 28, 199.,17 INDEX ROLL CALL x Fo llowing discussion, Council Member rea Motion Plummer made the motion to defer action All Ayes this matter to the meeting of Pv ember 12, 1991, until she has on cted the Sister City Cabo San Lucas Assoc tion Liaison to see if any of the items the subject report can be utilized them. 2. Memorandum rom the City Manager Council recommending neil Policy adoptions, Policy deletions or ndmants to the CITY (69) COUNCIL POLICY AL, and copy of memorandum from th Board of Library Trustees cone ng COLLECTION • EVELOPHENT POLICY 0- of the Newport Baec Pu is Library. x The foregoing was approved, following Motion discussion concerning amen nts to All Ayes Y Council Policy 0.1. whereby until Member Hart made a motion to "Priorities of Use, 1.4.1, to read: official Library/Cieyy of Newport initiated and/or conduactivities....'" Xn regarding thepublic library, to provide a consi policy when dealing with use of other City b%ildings. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-3 - Report CPA 91-3 from the Planning Department that the (45) City Council sustain the recommendations of the Planning Commission to initiate Amendments C, D, F, and G. and not to initiate Amendments B and E; and direct staff to proceed with the preparation of and .etc pry ublic envirheeringlbefore ents the Planning Commission as follows: B. 121 Vest Coast Hi hwn : A request o The Towers Owners Association to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to allow for the enclosure of a spa area for a legal, non -conforming mid -rise condominium development on the bay side of Hest Coast Highway in the Mariner'a Mile Specific Plan Area. t The proposal would require either an increase to allowable Floor Area Ratio in the Mariner's Mile area or a rodesignation of the property to Multi -Family Residential with a special floor area limit. C. 600 amboree Road: A request of Fle Fieer and Associates on behalf of Texaco Refining 6 Marketing Inc. to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the floor area limit from 2,000 square feet to 2,300 square feet to allow the addition of a mini -market to an existing gasoline service station. Volume 45 - Page 313 v CITY OF NWORT DUCHY CQ KIL t£2�'�kQ7S HWES October 2e, 1ffl Cftl ���AAAA I ROLL D. Pat Tel ette, A request of Reseo CPA 91-1 "Velopment to amend the Land Use Clement of the Newport Huch General Plan to redemigrate the $ite At the cornet of Bison Avenue and Camelback Streat 'from Retail and Service Commercial to Multi - Family Residential and allow A density of 10 dwelling units per aete for • senior related residential complex or 20 dwelling units per acre for a residential development with affordable housing. H. �jDO Nut Oenn Pront 1. A request of Francis Urs ini to amend the Land Use Clement of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the Allowed Floor Area Ratio from O.S/0.75 to 1.30 in the He Fadden Squars area in older to allow remodeling and addition to An existing, non -conforming retail building in association with seismic upgrades required by Chapter 15.07 of the Newport Beach a Municipal Code. F, �f Dieted .Hoot ina� A request of Cho City of Newport Beach to amend the Housing Clement of the Newport Beach General Plan to empty with recent changes in state law which require that the Housing Clement contain an analysis of existing •Assisted housing" developments with affordability requirements due to sunset within the next tan years and program to preserve the affordability of those units. .0. Circulation Omen— A request of the City of Newport eeseh to initiate an update of the Circulation Element to incorporate traffic projections, Intersection levels of service, and identified Improvements resulting from the Traffic Model update to Incorporate OCTAM II projects. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Hedges to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Convalesion with respect to items C, D, F and a, but also to initiate Amandment i, such that the Floor Area Ratio of the site to be considered be no greater than 1.00, Inasmuch as the existing building exceeds 1.00. Following extensive discussion and explanation by both staff and council regarding the property at 2200 west ocean Front, the Planning Director advised that what is being requested here is to change the designation on one gylees of property back up to 1.5 x the bulldabla arse of the lot for the purpose of being able to finance required earthquake strengthening of the building. In reslity, what would be required is to change the permitted volume as - page 214 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC. cWCIL KKBERS moti NAyesoes on I x I x I x I x I x I x Motion All Ayes October 28, 1991 Floe Area Ratio@ for similar type dove lopments in the McFadden Square Area. Because this particular property Is in a block where every other property Se dovelopod for residential use, and boc&use this appoars to be a very viable use of property on the oceanfront, the planning Department staff, in reviewing this particular request and making a recommendation to the Planning Commission, suggested that instead of going to 1.5 x buildable for commercial, to take a look at changing the Land Use designation on this one Piece of property to residential to make it conform with most of the uses in the block. But, the person who is requesting the General Plan Amendment was not in favor of that suggestion. If the City Council votes to approve initiation of the General Plan Amendment, then the Planning Department will do a required study, taking a look at not only this one piece of property, but the entire McFadden Square area, and then make a recommendation to the Planning hearing,commission for a rocommendation to thecitouncil. a Following'diecueeion, substitute motion x was made by Mayor Saaaone, which carried, to uphold the recommendation of the planning Commission as presented in the foregoing, to initiate Amendments C, D, F, and 0, and a2t to initiate Amendments B and E. Report from the Public Works Department concerning APPEAL OF C. J. WILLIAMS with a recommandation to deny request of Mr. Williams to construct nine pay @phones encroaching into the public ri -of-Hay of Balboa Boulevard, Hain Strew and Bay Avenue) and direct staff to pre re a proposed Council Policy governing he location of pay telephones in locati 5 which impact public property or p lic rights -of way. Following discuss n by Council Member Hodges, motion wa made to grant A temporary ancroachmen permit .allowing the existing pay teleph es only until the City Council establi as a policy governing pay telephones nd their locations, or any other a rce of commercial use ex on ding Into th ublic right-of-way, i.e., automatic t ler machinoe, or until tha Balboa Spee c Plan ie approved, whichever is later. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTIONI None. Volume 45 - Page 315 HINZES 91-3 (65) COh =SSIONERs MINUTES >' '�AOdhj4: vaqowm�ej�\ wo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 22, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX 4, isruption caused by construction work along roadways and b ovement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by prope se of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic co of and transportation of equipment and materials steal conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. , S. That this variance shall e ' e unless exercised within 24 months of the date of appro as specified in Section 20.52.090A of the Newport Beach nicipal Code. 6. That the applicant shall obtain the approva the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building p 'is. Use Permit No. 3462 (Public Hearin¢1 Item uo. Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing UP3462 commercial building which is nonconforming relative to floor area ratio and off-street parking on property located in the "Retail and Approved Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/Mcladden Square Specific Plan. The proposed construction includes the addition of a residential dwelling unit on the second floor and the conversion of an existing retail space to residential parking on the ground floor. The proposal also includes a request to demolish more than 50 percent of the existing exterior walls while maintaining the nonconforming floor area ratio and parking for the existing restaurant. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 22, Newport Beach, located at 2200 West Ocean Front, on the northerly corner of 22nd Street and West Ocean Front, adjacent to the West Ocean Front Municipal Parking Lot, in McFadden Square. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Lang Lampert Architects, Irvine -11- CO=SSIONERS MINUTES CO, P��Zpo2YoyA CITY OF NEVPPORT BEACH October 22, 1992 ,ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Fran Ursini, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, concurred with Commissioner Debay that the subject application is partly due to the seismic regulations. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Hewicker discussed the staff report's comments regarding Interpretation of Alteration and that the Zoning Code makes no reference to treatment of the roof or foundation of the building when discussing exterior walls. Mr. Hewicker stated that it appears that the applicant would be required to make substantial alterations to the foundation to support the second floor, and the roof will be completely removed. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the Commission consider alterations as a Discussion Item on a future Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Hewicker commented that the subject property is the only commercial building in the block and the remaining parcels are used as residential properties. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker explained that portions of the exterior walls on the frontages would be replaced. Commissioner Glover expressed her concerns regarding the regulations. k Commissioner Merrill stated that the reason for the nonconforming building is the FAR and parking. He expressed his support of the combination of commercial and residential uses. Commissioner Debay commended the redevelopment of McFadden Square and she expressed her support to continue to upgrade the area. In response to her comments regarding the number of required parking spaces, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Commission could waive the parking requirements. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Lang, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he distributed photographs of the subject site. -12- COMMSSIONTERS MINUTES ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH vctooer u, ryyi ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Lang stated that if the rear wall would be retained and the remaining walls would be demolished, that the nonconforming requirements of the Municipal Code would be met. The existing structure was built for a second story addition, and it may be i possible that the construction that is proposed may not require the existing foundation to be upgraded. Mr. Lang stated that the proposal would improve the property, and the brick and stone exterior would be consistent with the McFadden Square redevelopment. In reference to the parking requirements, be said that three retail uses would be eliminated; the restaurant would be reduced in size; parking spaces would .be provided for the residents; and he concluded that the proposed development would reduce the net overall parking requirement by four parking spaces. In reference to the four required additional findings listed in the staff report, Mr. Lang said that the wording on the findings are ambiguous: i.e. it is physically impossible to not have a nonconforming condition inasmuch as it is impossible to provide the required number of parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Lang explained that the existing take-out restaurant currently sells hamburgers and it is proposed that the restaurant would also provide indoor seating. Mr. Hewicker explained that a use permit would be required for the proposed take-out restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Lang explained that it is possible that the proposed restaurant would have a take-out window, subject to a use permit. Mr. Lang concurred with a 5 foot corner cutoff at the comer of 22nd Street and West Ocean Front as indicated in Condition No. 11, Exhibit W. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "R. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3462 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "R. -13- "01 COMRIISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Uccuoer cc, iyyc ROLL CALL 1 11 HL INDEX Commissioner Debay supported the motion on the basis that it would help the business community. The proposal would be an upgrade of the property and would conform with the improvements in the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker replied that inasmuch as there is no subdivision involved with this request, that a park fee would not be required for the new residential unit on the property. Commissioner Gifford stated that based on the proposed improvement to the area that she would support the motion. The applicant should not,. be penalized for attempting to do the remodel under the existing regulations. Commissioner Pomeroy said that property owners should not be required to retain walls when it would be more economical to demolish the walls, and it is a regulation that should be changed. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Findines: 1. That the proposed commercial space constitutes a significant portion of the development. 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 4. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Octoner YL, 0YL ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the cost of the improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. 6. That the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. 7. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. 8. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. 9. That the net overall parking requirement will be reduced in conjunction with the proposed development, and the 2 required parking spaces for the residential unit will be provided on -site. 10. That the PAR of the commercial use will be reduced from 0.99 to 0.57. 11. That a 10 foot rear yard setback will be maintained adjacent to an alley where no setback exists, and so sight distance will be improved, 12. The approval of Use Permit No. 3462 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shalt be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That only one dwelling unit shall be permitted on the site. -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r%'f h.r 'Y) 1001 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the two garage parking spaces (including a tandem parking space) shall be used for the parking of two vehicles at all times, and shall be for the exclusive use of the residential unit on the site. 4. That the existing take-out windows adjacent to the public sidewalks shall be removed or otherwise filled -in and shall not be reinstalled or utilized, unless a use permit is approved for use of said windows. , S. That the future tenant of the take-ouf restaurant space shall be subject to approval of a separate use permit prior .to issuance ,of any building permits for tenant improvements. 6. That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 1.25 as proposed, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission.. 7. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion bf the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 9. That the dwelling unit and the commercial use be served with individual water service and sewer lateral connections to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. -16- COMIMSSIONERS MINUTES A1\13� �Nlslv CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Vctoder zz, lYYL ROLL CALL INDEX 11. That a 5 foot corner cutoff at the corner of 22nd Street and West Ocean Front be dedicated to the public prior to issuance of any building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and that the proposed structure be modified so that it does not encroach into the newly dedicated easement area. 12. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 13. That the proposed structure maintain a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley. 14. That any sidewalk improvements damaged during the construction of the proposed development be reconstructed to match existing. All damaged sidewalk shall be replaced in full panels as approved by the Public Works Department. All work within the public right-of-way shall be constructed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the West Ocean Front right- of-way. Pedestrian facilities shall be maintained at all times along the West Ocean Front frontage. 16. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES '0o 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH vcwuci cc, 477G ROLL CALL INDEX 17. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits for construction or demolition. 18. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. 19. That should over 75% of the existing perimeter walls be removed, the existing structure will be considered demolished, and this use permit shall become null and void. 20. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 21. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Usemit No. 3463 Public Hearin Item No. Request to per ' the establishment of a recreational use which UP3463 specializes in weight 'ning and body development, on property Approved located in the "Retail a Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan own as the Mariner's Mile Commercial Center. The propos o includes: a request to transfer a portion of the development rig h om the parcel used for off-street parking to the parcel to be use the proposed recreational use; a request to establish an off-str parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the installation -18- 4 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 'Fide FP\N1\M�Ct%k0\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 23 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3535 (Public Hearing) Etem No.2 Request to permit alterations to an existing commercial building P3535 which is nonconforming with regards to Floor Area Ratio and off street parking provisions. The proposed alterations include the pprovea renovation and expansion of an existing take-out restaurant, the renovation of a portion of the existing retail space, and the request to demolish more than 50 percent of the existing walls of the building. The proposed alterations will result in a decrease in the prorated development intensity of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the construction of a new trash enclosure that encroaches 5± feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 22, Newport Beach, located at 2200 West Ocean Front, on the northwesterly corner of West Ocean Front and 22nd Street, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Francis Ursini, Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, requested that Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A" be amended to state "That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 0.91 as proposed." and that "unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission" be deleted. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Frank Ursini, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ursini addressed Exhibit "A", and he asked for a clarification of Condition No. 3 requesting that the future tenant of the restaurant shall be subject to a separate use permit -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June l3 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX inasmuch as the use will remain the same. In reference to Condition No. 13, Mr. Ursini responded that it is feasible that Coastal Commission approval may not be necessary because of the type of reconstruction that is being done. In reference to Condition No. 15 stating that should over 75 percent of the existing perimeter walls be removed that the existing structure would be considered demolished and the subject use permit would become null and void, Mr. Ursini asked what would happen if during construction the wall would fall down. James Hewicker, Planning Director, responded to the aforementioned questions. He stated that the building will be vacated and reconstructed and it is staff s opinion that any new use in the building requiring a use permit should receive a use permit, and a use should not be 'grandfathered' that is not going to be there once the project is completed. Staff is not aware of why a Coastal Permit would not be required; however, Condition No. 13 could be modified stating that a Coastal Permit be obtained if required. Mr. Hewicker stated that if more than 75 percent of the walls should be demolished during construction then the use permit would be void and the new building would be constructed to the current Floor Area Ratios, or the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for a use permit. In response to comments by Mr. Ursini regarding the use, Mr. Hewicker explained that inasmuch as the existing use does not have a use permit that, it allow the City to bring the restaurant use up to current zoning standards. Commissioner Ridgeway requested a clarification of the request for a second use permit for a restaurant use on the property. Mr. Hewicker explained that the existing use is legal nonconforming, and the restaurant use would be larger than the current use on the premises. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the applicant maintains the identical square footage of 1,877 square feet in the restaurant would it be necessary to apply for an additional use permit? Mr. Ursmi responded that he would reduce the size of the restaurant to avoid a second use permit. Commissioner -8- bOMMSSIONERS MINUTES 11- \\�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T. __ 01 100A J ULLN L✓, 1JJ�' ROLL CALL INDEX Gifford and Commissioner Ridgeway discussed the need to process two use permits. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the purpose of the subject use permit is that the applicant is proposing to reconstruct less than 75 percent of the existing perimeter walls to be able to continue the nonconforming structure. If a business is operating that is nonconforming because it does not have a use permit, and on the basis that the structure would be reconstructed and expanded or changes would be made in the current use, then a use permit for the use should be required so as to be in compliance with current regulations. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill, Ms. Flory responded that she considered the changes that are being made on the subject site to be voluntary abandonment. Commissioner Edwards and Ms. Flory discussed Commissioner Edwards' comments regarding the alteration of the nonconforming structure, and if the applicant maintains the same use why should the applicant be required to come back for a second use permit. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the intent is for property owners to be allowed to reconstruct older buildings, not change the use, and to upgrade the City. He suggested that Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A", could be amended to state that if the new restaurant take-out space is greater in size than the previous use then a new use permit would be processed. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that inasmuch as the applicant has indicated that the proposed size would be reduced to the original size that a second use permit not be required. Commissioner Gifford and Mr. Hewicker addressed the numerous changes that could be made in the new restaurant's operational characteristics. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Ursini replied that a new tenant lease would go into affect. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that a termination of a lease and a renegotiation of a new lease is not an abandonment. Mr. Ursini stated that inasmuch as he is required to retrofit the building for earthquake protection purposes, that the existing use -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES c�yo to P 4000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH hmp 74 1QQ4 ROLL CALL INDEX would have to leave the building temporarily. Ms. Flory suggested that the Planning Commission could determine if the use is an abandonment, and if the nonconforming use changes some time in the future, then the Planning Commission could make a decision• if a use permit would be required. Mr. Ursini explained that if the restaurant remains the same size it is possible that the seating area, the kitchen area, and the number of employees would remain the same. Commissioner Glover opined that the project shall not be considered an abandonment. The City is encouraging the property owners to invest money in the legal nonconforming buildings, and she suggested that if the applicant agrees to maintain the existing square footage, then he should not be required to apply for a new use permit. Ms. Flory stated that aforementioned Condition No. 3 could be amended to state that if the new tenant space maintains the same square footage, and the operational characteristics of the current nonconforming use are maintained, then a use permit would not be required. Mr. Jim Balding, 220 Nice Lane, No. 304, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Balding stated that to bring the building up to earthquake standards, the applicant could install an interior rigid frame into the building that was built in 1910, or to reconstruct the building as proposed. Mr. Henry Johnson, 2202 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that he supports the proposed project. However, he expressed concerns regarding the trash container in the alley; the possibility that a high volume take-out restaurant would be located on the site; and that the restaurant's operational characteristics would change. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if the Planning Commission approves the subject request and if the -existing restaurant remains the same square footage that the applicant would be allowed to operate the take- out restaurant as it currently exists. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES O ,�pS� `p0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .rune LJ, iyy+ ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Marcia Dossey, 109 - 26th Street, President of the Newport Pier Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that the merchants have been encouraged to revitalize the area for economic growth for the City and for the Balboa Peninsula. The subject request would improve the property to the existing zoning regulations, and the use would not change. She addressed the redevelopment that is in process on the Peninsula, and she determined that if the property owners would be limited in the rehabilitation of the buildings and the operational characteristics do not change, then it would be defeating the purpose for economic revitalization of the Peninsula. She said that the recommendation should be taken into consideration for all of the merchants in the atba, otherwise the area would decline and the City's historical buildings and character would not be saved. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. 4otion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3535 subject to the k11 ayes findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", and to amends Condition No. 3 to state that in the event the area of the new take-out restaurant is larger or its operational characteristics are different than the existing restaurant, then a separate use permit shall be required. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is not in the City's best interest to allow this type of work to be done and stilli require that only 75 percent of the building be addressedi and old walls have to stand. He said that if it is the intent to allow the nonconforming use to be rebuilt, then the City should allow it to be rebuilt properly in the most economical manner. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. He suggested that an amendment be added to Condition No. 13 stating "as may be necessary." Ms. Flory recommended that Condition No. 4 be modified as previously suggested. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with the recommendations. Commissioner Gifford asked how the present operational characteristics could be entered into the record whereby Mr. -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \mkmt�z%\o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1)z 10QA J LLIIV LJ, 1// . ROLL CALL INDEX Hewicker stated that staff would visit the existing restaurant and review the operation. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3535 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", and to modify Conditions No. 3, No. 4, and No. 13 as suggested. MOTION CARRIED. Findines: 1. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 3. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the cost of the improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. 5. That the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed: 6. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. 7. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �dAo '�iF,cl cln�d dr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J LLIlV , ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That the net overall parking requirement will be reduced by one parking space in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. That the FAR of the commercial use will be reduced from 0.99 to 0:91. 10. That the proposed modification to the Zoning Code is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, given that the proposed trash enclosure encroachment into the 10 foot rear yard setback will result in improved vehicular circulation and sight distance in the alley over the current building that encroaches to the rear property line. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 3535 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the !City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the existing take-out windows adjacent to the public sidewalks shall be removed or otherwise filled -in and shall not be reinstalled or utilized, unless a use permit is approved for use of said windows. 3. That in the event the area of the new take-out restaurant is larger, or its operational characteristics are different than the existing restaurant, then a separate use permit shall be required. -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 410PIPORMIZ10\60 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH une , ROLL CALL INDEX t. That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 0.91 as proposed. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. That a 5 foot corner cutoff at the corner of 22nd Street and West Ocean Front be dedicated to the public prior to issuance of any building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and that the proposed structure not encroach into the newly dedicated easement area. That the proposed structure maintain a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley, except for the proposed trash enclosure which is permitted to encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the alley setback. That any sidewalk improvements damaged during the construction of the proposed development be reconstructed to match existing. All damaged sidewalk shall be replaced in full panels as approved by the Public Works Department. All work within the public right-of-way shall be constructed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 0. That all proposed entry doors be designed so that they will not swing out onto the ocean Front or 22nd Street sidewalks. 1. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7...... O2 1 00A J LL1lV 4J, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the West Ocean Front right- of-way. Pedestrian facilities shall be maintained at all times along the West Ocean Front frontage. 12. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 13. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits for construction or demolition, except as provided i for seismic upgrade pursuant to Section 20.83.070 and Chapter 15.07 of the Municipal Code, as may be necessary. 14. That the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. 15. That should over 75% of the existing perimeter walls be removed, the existing structure will be considered demolished, and this use permit shall become null and void. 16. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -15- M CONUMSSIONERS MINUTES ytt P'1'o�0o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T..-- O] 1 nnA J ullG LJ, 1JJ'i ROLL CALL INDEX 17. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. raffic Study No. 97 Public Hearin Item No. Reques to approve a traffic study for a proposed automobile TS 97 rental fac 'ty. UP3530 AND B. Use Permit No. 530 Public Hearin Request to permit th establishment of an automobile rental facility which includes a c washing and maintenance facility and underground fuel facilities . n property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also in des a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a monume sign and an electric guard: gate to encroach into the required 15 t front yard setback. LOCATION: Lots 25 and 26, • act No. 3201, located at 4242-4262 Camp Drive, on the southeasterly side of pus Drive, between Dove Street and Ma thur Boulevard, across from the John Wa Airport. ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Nogle Onufer Associates Architects, c., San Diego OWNER: The Shattuck Family Trust, Newport Bea James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to Condition No. 28, Exhibit "A", requesting a Lot Line Adjustment, whereby he suggested that a Covenant be required so as to hold the two -16- COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS Check No: Telephone: (714) 644-3200 By:Genia Garcia Associate Planner By Christy Teague Associate Planner By:Marc Myers, Associate Planner Date: Districting Map No. D By: Address: Land Use Element Page No Corrections Required: �� D�f Legal Description: Lot �_ Block 2 2 Section Tract , Resubdivision required to combine lots or portions of lots when construction or alterations are in excess of $20,000. Covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached ,,� t document and return to me. m Lot Size 1 5x 13 S : 30750 5 P� 9 g5c, Ta ke ou l �eslzcV�a,�37& _� Zone Proposed Use ! Ke 0&,4/Re:5_110.0('4,r�l' /�� 1I 5O? ,-s— Reauired Setbacks Z 7 7 -7 E✓" L'- Front (/ Rear ��% ` 5 `'�►-asl� �I , Ut'� Right Side d Left Side D� Lot area (site area sa.ft.): FAR WORKSHEET / [ )M F eer- vP�S✓S Cveld . 3 sq.ft. Base Development Allocation (BDA): Comm aq.ft: [0.5 x site area sq.ft., unless otherwise specified in Land Use Element] FAR permitted, without variance: (A) Comm res ok Square footage permitted: comm res oka sq.ft. [(A) x site area sq.ft.) Maximum FAR allowed with variance: (B) Comm res oka Maximum square footage allowed: comm res sq.ft. [(B) x site area sq.ft.) ' PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: (C) Base FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (D) Reduced FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (E) Maximum FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (F) TOTAL SQ.FT. [C+D+E] sq.ft. PROPOSED FAR: [ F + site area sq.ft. ] PROPOSED WEIGHTED DEVELOPMENT: FAR Use Category Weighting Factor Weighted Sq.Ft. (G) (H) f G x H l sq.ft. Base X 1.00 sq.ft. sq.ft. Reduced X 1.67 sq.ft. sq.ft. Maximum X 0.50 sq.ft. TOTAL S� W//E��IGHTED SQ.FT.(May not exceed BDA) 1y�K� Provide tissue overlay of calculations to verify provided square footage. Required parking )%emsyP -:3 5-3 a:f= Proposed parking (Indicate number of stalls provided) ` Total on -Site Parking 67 k-- y�.� (� �fi� Standard Compact / f,�,In-lieu Parking �'X,j ✓lU✓) '�✓) '( W' Dimension building height as measured from natural grade to average and maximum roof height Show natural grade line on all elevation$ Show all rooftop mechanical equipment and dimension from grade directly below. _ 7r.16 `y P ►; eaw-e Indicate location of trash containers on site plan. Number of Stories P_,ol;(Ln Floor Plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses. r Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences, etc. in relation to the property line. n la Fair Share Contribution r���'S'iA"Y" L04I t Plot '�be� d .n "�.7 i, ,., A 1 .. . Zvi k -% 6 ' I1 dQ _ San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee ,OCTAL APPROVAL REQUIRED THROUGHt Please indicate any discretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate the attached; ..excerpt of minutes and list of findings and conditions into the blueline drawings approval letter into the blueline drawings _ Modifications Committee: Indicate Approval No. on Bluelines Modification required for Plannings,ommission/City t/, Use Permit: ouncili '- ^+ � �i'�/�✓wE'G� � " q 4 No._ variances No. Resubdivision/Tracts No. site Plan Review: No. Amendment: NO. '— Other i J 5 Goad fO r-nay n l,�khGt Good. -7 ss PWorks Easement/Encroachment Permit ev"Ia(. Approvaly+blic ^�Y'? Subdivision Engineer Traffic Engineer of Landscape ao' A. Plana ✓ �✓5 !' (n . (�. 3� n a+++ dl nc Department s Grading Engineer '�+/a}/•^7 G {/�bU-5'� I�Pi✓I (� Parke Departments C1(/J/�I Gt rU✓� PV'i v✓ Approval of Landscape Plane Coastal Development Permitst-- site floor, and elevations) Approval In Concept (AIC) No. (Notes File 3 sets of planes _— Coastal Development Permit: Effective No. Dates_1�2.151�-�j Waiver/Exemption: No. Effective date: 35J. •r1 A snVlln' 5 , ( . i- J.fA e J ✓ �� s :_ .��r � i.I s-.LA _. I J. .ld� � r1AJ //JNN PJ-7AdI 14. ✓1 lei" A- Lad. 15 1( 'r" o ✓e-4-' % 5 "/a I P2�'(vKe�✓' v✓a! l � l�� �GWto✓� ! -K� Is' Sd-rvc cfx rr yv I I b e- Govis 1 de,,"'eoQ j Gvr► D vt Se. P-t.✓"V+ NOTE: xt is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. xf you have questions regarding your application, please contaot me at (714) 644- 3200. FORMS\COMM-toN.COR Rev. 2/94