Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/1986REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A Y p R CALL Present X X X X X All Commissioners Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney x • x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary r • � Minutes of December 5, 1985: *Yes I I I I Motion s made for approval of the December 5, 1985, 1 Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ♦ r Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that the representative of Bubbles Balboa Club has requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) be continued to the January 23, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff recommends that the following items be continued to the January 23, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting: Item No. 7, Use Permit No. 3178 and Resubdivision No. 821 regarding the construction of a combined residential - commercial structure at 504 South Bay Front; Item No. 10, Use Permit No. 3181 regarding a proposed restaurant adjacent to Lido Marina Village; Item No. 12, Use Permit No. 3184 regarding a proposed restaurant in the former Tiffany's Private Club facility adjacent to Lido Marina Village; and Item No. 13, Use Permit No. 3185 regarding the construction of an office building in the, Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area which exceeds the 26 X foot basic height limit. Motion was made to continue eyes Items No. 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13 to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x �e MINUTES Minutes of 12 -5 -85 Request for Continuance C o PLACE: City Council Chambers � -� v � °y m TIME: 7:30 p.m. m v p = ,- o = DATE: January 9, 1986 a z A = ° m Cit of Newport Beach EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney x • x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary r • � Minutes of December 5, 1985: *Yes I I I I Motion s made for approval of the December 5, 1985, 1 Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ♦ r Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that the representative of Bubbles Balboa Club has requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) be continued to the January 23, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff recommends that the following items be continued to the January 23, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting: Item No. 7, Use Permit No. 3178 and Resubdivision No. 821 regarding the construction of a combined residential - commercial structure at 504 South Bay Front; Item No. 10, Use Permit No. 3181 regarding a proposed restaurant adjacent to Lido Marina Village; Item No. 12, Use Permit No. 3184 regarding a proposed restaurant in the former Tiffany's Private Club facility adjacent to Lido Marina Village; and Item No. 13, Use Permit No. 3185 regarding the construction of an office building in the, Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area which exceeds the 26 X foot basic height limit. Motion was made to continue eyes Items No. 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13 to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x �e MINUTES Minutes of 12 -5 -85 Request for Continuance COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 9, 1986 x x C o n y 9 = i C m r c M s m = Cz viva A m 0 m> T T Cit of Y Newport p Beach z a 2 9 Z n m a LL INDEX Final Map of Tract No. 12079 (Discussion) Item No.l Request to approve a Final Map of Tract No. 12079 sub- Final Map dividing a portion of an existing lot containing .483 of Tract acres of land, into one lot for residential condominium No. 12079 purposes. Approved LOCATION: A portion of Lot 3, Tract No. 1237, located at 487 Morning Canyon Road, on the northeasterly corner of Morning Canyon Road and East Coast Highway, in Corona Highlands. ZONE: R -3 -B APPLICANT: Rumney Enterprises, Inc., Irvine OWNER: - Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers, Costa Mesa . The discussion period opened at this time, and because there was no one present representing the applicant, a motion was made to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 12079, subject to the finding and condition in Exhibit AMotion Ayes tion X "A ^. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDING: 1. That the proposed Final Map substantially conforms with the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12079 and all conditions imposed in conjunction with the ap- proval of the Tentative Map. CONDITION: 1. That all conditions of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12079, as approved by the City Council on March 12, 1984 shall be fulfilled. -2- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 A x C o x IM C m z c m y ," z C z u. o f o 0 M z A z T m City of Newport Beach Resubdivision No. 820 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into two parcels for single family residential development purposes involving property located in the custom lot area (Area 5) of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Commu- nity. MINUTES LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Lot Line Adjustment No. 85 -6, located at 3 and 5 Cheshire Court, on the southerly side of Cheshire Court, easterly of Belcourt Drive North,. in Area 5 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Richards, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Richards stated that the applicant agrees with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 820, All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -3- Item No.2 R820 Approved MMISSIONERS • 9 ItV Of January 9, 1986 Beach 3. That the design of the subdivision or 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 subdivision. 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. * a x A. Use Permit No. 3183 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a two unit resi- dential condominium project on property located in the R -2 District. F{T1] B. Resubdivision No. 822 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot so as to create a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 38, Tract No. 682, located at 426 Avocado Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Avocado Avenue, between Water Front Drive and Second Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Charles Capri, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Ron Miedema, Costa Mesa MINUTES Item No.3 UP3183 R822 Denied x x c o f a v m y 9 r v z c m a m z C F 2 r C z N o 0 o O O M m o m > a T m z a z p z r m • 9 ItV Of January 9, 1986 Beach 3. That the design of the subdivision or 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 subdivision. 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. * a x A. Use Permit No. 3183 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a two unit resi- dential condominium project on property located in the R -2 District. F{T1] B. Resubdivision No. 822 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot so as to create a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 38, Tract No. 682, located at 426 Avocado Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Avocado Avenue, between Water Front Drive and Second Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Charles Capri, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Ron Miedema, Costa Mesa MINUTES Item No.3 UP3183 R822 Denied COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 xx c o � Capri stated that he acquired the property, including s V m z c m a m z an old house that was demolished in order to construct C z W o r 0 0 M A 2 M= T City of Newport Beach m( the condominium, in October, 1982; that he obtained the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject application is unique inasmuch as the property owner's intent was to establish a residential condominium project on the site, and that the condominium residential development was occupied with that intent. He further stated that the Planning Commission does not have an option regarding a condominium conversion on this particular lot because the lot contains less than the minimum acceptable lot size of 5,000 square feet required by Code. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Timothy Blied, attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blied stated that the. applicant agrees with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", with the exception of Conditions No. 4, 5, and 6. In response to a clarification of Condition No. 4 regarding spawled concrete around the water meter in the alley, Donald Webb, City Engineer, advised that because the water meter was not installed properly, the water meter is beginning to peel out which will eventually create a hole around the water meter. Mr. Charles Capri, applicant, referring to Conditions No. 5 and 6, explained that the existing tree at the intersection of the two alleys adjacent to the subject property that staff recommended be removed, was originally planted so as to protect the corner of the dwelling. Mr. Webb explained that the 4 foot by 4 foot corner cutoff at the southeasterly corner of the alley at the subject site, was recommended to enable vehicles to negotiate a sharp turn in the alley. Mr. Capri commented that he has not received any complaints regarding the tree, and he opined that the tree may have protected the eaves of the dwelling. -5- MINUTES In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Capri stated that he acquired the property, including an old house that was demolished in order to construct the condominium, in October, 1982; that he obtained the building permit in July or August, 1983; and that he moved into the new dwelling in August, 1984. Mr. Capri advised that he entered into a lease agreement with Kathleen Howard with an option to purchase the second dwelling unit on the property, at the time the project was completed in August 1984. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion X Commissioner Turner made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3183 and Resubdivision No. 822, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -5- MINUTES MMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES xx _ C o S 9 z 9 m z c m a m z C N o 3 0 0 M City of Newport Beach z m Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would not support the motion because she could not establish the application as anything other than a condominium conversion, and she commented that she did not understand why the applicant had not originally submitted the application as a residential condominium project. Commissioner Turner cited that the proposed condominium is a good use for the R -2 property, and that ownership of the premises allows for stability in the neighborhood. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would not support the motion, and cited that the proposed residential condominium conversion could be precedent setting. Ayes X X Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3183 and Noes X x X K Y Resubdivision No. 822, and MOTION DENIED. Mo 'on X Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3183 and X x X K X Resubdivision No. 822, subject to the findings for X X denial. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. USE PERMIT NO. 3183 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed condominium conversion is not consistent with those goals and policies of the General Plan which seek to maintain rental housing opportunities by restricting conversions of rental units to residential condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is 5 percent or higher for four consecutive quarters,. The most recent vacancy rate survey indicates a 2.58 rental vacancy rate. 2. The subject property contains less than 5,000 square feet of land area. 3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the subject property, structure, or use, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, • buildings and /or uses in the same district, that would justify or support the applicant's request to convert a rental structure to a residential condominium use on a parcel containing less than the minimum land area of 5,000 square feet. x x C o z i ti v v m z c M y m z W A z r 0 S Z W o i 0 0 a m O m T T z a = y z z T m • January 9, 1986 of Newport Beach 4. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant inasmuch as the subject property has been developed with a two -unit residential rental structure. 5. That approval of this request would establish a precedent for similar requests that collectively would have a deleterious effect on the rental housing supply in the City. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for shall, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the project will decrease the rental housing in the City. RESUBDIVISION NO. 822 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent with all ordinances of the City. Specifically, the requirements for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet for residential condominium conversions has not been met. 2. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent with the General Plan, which seeks to maintain rental housing opportunities by restricting residential condominium conversions. 3. That the Planning Commission is not satisfied with the plan of subdivision. ,e r, -7- MINUTES INDEX WV\DNUNtK�) January 9, 1986 MINUTES X x C o 0 x 'y x - C v m Z c m a m Z C Z m 0 3 0 0 z z 9 z T m City of Newport Beach a INDEX Variance No. 1127 (Public Hearing) IItem No.4 Request to permit alterations and additions to an V1127 existing single family dwelling and garage which exceed the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limita- Approved tion District. All development will be below the top of the curb along Ocean Boulevard, with the exception of two chimneys. The proposal also includes a modifi- cation to the zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the new construction to utilize the existing wall line of the structure, a small portion of which encroaches into the required 4 foot southwesterly side yard setback; and a request to maintain the existing one foot front yard setback encroachment of the expanded garage. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Block 033, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 2733 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard, between Fernleaf Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Yair Koshet, Encino OWNER: Dr. Martin List, Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that a letter has been 'received by staff from several residents living on Goldenrod Avenue, Ocean Boulevard, and Heliotrope Avenue regarding the landscaping on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Hewicker advised that upon review of the location of the subject landscaping, the landscaping has been planted on public property by the City or owners of adjoining properties who have received encroachment permits from the City. He stated that the residents who signed the petition should contact Mr. Ron Whitley, Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation regarding their concerns. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Yair Koshet, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In • response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Koshet advised that the chimneys will extend 24 inches above the curb line, a minimum above the roof line, and the roof line is 2 inches below the curb. me COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 X C O g y a v = v i s m a m = C 2 N O r o o a= m m i= m I City of Newport Beach a The public hearing was closed at this time. Discussion followed regarding the Uniform Building Code requirement of the chimney minimum height, and the possibility of amending Condition No. 3 in Exhibit "A" that would restrict the height of the applicant's' chimney to 24 inches above the curb. Motion I 1XI I I I I I Motion was made to accept the environmental document All Ayes and approve Variance No. 1127, in accordance with the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district • inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than other lots on the upland side of Ocean Boulevard. 2. That the granting of a variance to exceed the permitted building height is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is of comparable height to other build- ings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building at the proposed height will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the proposed side and front yard encroach- ments are minor in nature and will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES a x o C v > y m z c m > m z C z m z T m City of Newport Beach C z N O s o o R LL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 0 • 2. That no portion of the proposed structure shall be constructed above the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard, except for two chimneys. 3. That the proposed chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. 4. That the applicant shall provide verification during the course of construction that the pro- posed development fully complies with the provi- sions of Condition No. 2 above. Required verifi- cation shall be prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to final inspections of rough framing. 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 improvements. 7. That five foot wide concrete sidewalk be construc- ted along the Ocean Boulevard frontage and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 8. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 9. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facil- ities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 10. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. -10- COMMISSIONERS . January 9, 1986 MINUTES of Newport Beach 11. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional' Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 12. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 13. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. • I I I 14. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 15. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x * x Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of the existing Bubbles Balboa Club with on sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment. The proposal includes a request to amend Condition No. 10 of the existing use permit so as to allow the addition of amplified music in conjunction with the subject restaurant. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 189 -17, 18 (Resubdivision No. 713), located at 109 -111 Palm Street, on the southwes- terly corner of Palm Street and West • Balboa Boulevard, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -11- Item No.5 UP2045 (Amended) Continued to 1 -23 -66 xx c o � m z c m y m z m a A z r 0 m 0 M o m a T MCI Z a z s z m m of Newport Beach 11. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional' Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 12. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 13. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. • I I I 14. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 15. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x * x Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of the existing Bubbles Balboa Club with on sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment. The proposal includes a request to amend Condition No. 10 of the existing use permit so as to allow the addition of amplified music in conjunction with the subject restaurant. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 189 -17, 18 (Resubdivision No. 713), located at 109 -111 Palm Street, on the southwes- terly corner of Palm Street and West • Balboa Boulevard, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -11- Item No.5 UP2045 (Amended) Continued to 1 -23 -66 COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES xx C o x C 9 , v m z C m s m = m a m z T m j City of Newport Beach C Z W a X o 0 APPLICANT: Bubbles Balboa Club, Ltd., Balboa OWNER: Same as applicant Motion I I I IX I I I I A representative of Bubbles Balboa Club, Ltd. All Ayes recommended that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1986. Motion was made to continue this item to January 23, 1986, Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, advised that staff is recommending that Condition No. 15 regarding the separation between buildings be added to Exhibit "A" inasmuch as the Zoning Code states that the R -3 District requires a minimum of 8 feet between buildings, and that the proposed development shows 6 feet between the proposed buildings adjacent to the beach. Mr. Laycock recommended that Condition No. 15 state: "that a minimum separation of 8 feet shall be . maintained between buildings except that a chimney shall be permitted in said area ". Mr. Laycock explained that the Zoning Code permits chimneys to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks. -12- Use Permit No. 3091 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3091 allowed the construction of a four unit residential (Amended) condominium project on property located in the R -3 District. The proposed amendment includes a revised Continued site plan, floor plans and elevations for the previ- to ously approved project. 1 -23 -86 • LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 84 -1 (Resubdivision No. 403), located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard, between "E" and "F" Streets, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Dr. Richard L. Zahn, Fullerton OWNER: Robert Warmington, Costa Mesa William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, advised that staff is recommending that Condition No. 15 regarding the separation between buildings be added to Exhibit "A" inasmuch as the Zoning Code states that the R -3 District requires a minimum of 8 feet between buildings, and that the proposed development shows 6 feet between the proposed buildings adjacent to the beach. Mr. Laycock recommended that Condition No. 15 state: "that a minimum separation of 8 feet shall be . maintained between buildings except that a chimney shall be permitted in said area ". Mr. Laycock explained that the Zoning Code permits chimneys to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks. -12- The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jack Hester, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. January 9, 1986 JC - 0 0 A 9 = C 2 c p m r V a m m Z c= Z M W z O 3 a z O T O m City of Newport Beach yard setback adjacent to East Balboa Boulevard. Mr. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jack Hester, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hester stated that the proposed project contains four dwelling units containing approximately the same square footage as previously proposed at the June 21, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hester cited that to enhance the project, and to become better neighbors in the area, the applicant has reduced the amount of paving that was included in the original proposal, and the three story concept has been removed by keeping within the two story height limit. • Ms. Lillian Kamph, 1320 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project. Ms. Kamph stated her concerns regarding the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood and her desire to have the area re -zoned R -1, and she further stated her opposition to the encroachment of the greenhouse windows. Chairman Person and Commissioner Turner -13- MINUTES Mr. Hester commented that he was just made aware of the 8 foot requirement between buildings, and asked if the 2 foot difference could be corrected by decreasing the front yard setback by 2 feet, leaving a 2 foot front yard setback adjacent to East Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Hewicker expressed his concern regarding the visual safety for oncoming traffic and pedestrians if the building were moved 2 feet closer to the street. Mr. Hewicker cited that no setbacks would be required if the applicant connected the structures. Mr. Hester replied that the applicant does not want to lose any open space surrounding the buildings, or the feel of a dense project. Mr. Hewicker cited that the Planning Commission could grant the applicant the 6 feet between buildings by continuing the hearing so that the City will be able to advertise for the modification to the • Zoning Code. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner regarding structural connections, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant could modify the project with a common roof, a wall connecting the two structures that would carry water and gas between the two buildings, or a wall that could run from one building to another on the opposite side of the patio. Mr. Webb commented that a minimum 2 foot setback is a minimum distance for automobiles to back out into the pedestrian area, and that he recommended that the 4 foot front setback be maintained. Chairman Person and Commissioner Turner suggested that the applicant return in two weeks with a request for a modification to the Zoning Code. Mr. Hester stated that the proposed project contains four dwelling units containing approximately the same square footage as previously proposed at the June 21, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hester cited that to enhance the project, and to become better neighbors in the area, the applicant has reduced the amount of paving that was included in the original proposal, and the three story concept has been removed by keeping within the two story height limit. • Ms. Lillian Kamph, 1320 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed project. Ms. Kamph stated her concerns regarding the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood and her desire to have the area re -zoned R -1, and she further stated her opposition to the encroachment of the greenhouse windows. Chairman Person and Commissioner Turner -13- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 X C O n Committee was formed after the previous proposal came A 9 Z C c m y m z before the Planning Commission on March 24, 1984. He c z w o; 0 0 I = 9 = I City of Newport Beach _ said that the Ad Hoc Committee consisted of two City discussed the possibility of rezoning the subject site with Ms. Kamph, and Mr. Hewicker explained that the proposals to change the zoning on property can only be initiated by the property owner, the City Council, or the Planning Commission. Mr. Hester reappeared before the Planning Commission, wherein he asked if the Planning Commission would approve the project with the stipulation that the buildings be connected: Chairman Person and Commissioner Turner stated that they would have difficulty approving a project that they did not know what they were approving. Mr. Hester advised that he would agree to a continuance to the next Planning Commission meeting so that he may meet with the Planning Department staff for recommendations. IxI Motion was made to continue Use Permit -No. 3091 es (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * x x -14- MINUTES INDEX Mr. Hewicker commented that a City Council Ad Hoc Committee was formed after the previous proposal came before the Planning Commission on March 24, 1984. He said that the Ad Hoc Committee consisted of two City Council members and was staffed by the Planning Department; however, he said that to his knowledge the Committee never had a formal meeting, and after approximately one year the Committee was sunsetted. Mr. Hewicker stated that the subject property has had a history of multi- residential use over the past ten years and that if the City initiated rezoning of the subject property at this time to lower the use of the property the law may not agree with the City's decision. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney advised that the City can down -zone property if there is no reasonable use left of the property. Mr. Hewicker asked Ms. Korade if the Planning Commission and the City Council have already approved numerous projects with the same number of dwelling units on the property, then what findings would the City be required to make to down -zone the site at this time. Ms. Korade answered that the findings that would be necessary would consist of health, safety, welfare, consistency in the neighborhood, and the findings and conditions would have to be expanded considerably. She recommended not to down -zone the subject property at this time. Mr. Hester reappeared before the Planning Commission, wherein he asked if the Planning Commission would approve the project with the stipulation that the buildings be connected: Chairman Person and Commissioner Turner stated that they would have difficulty approving a project that they did not know what they were approving. Mr. Hester advised that he would agree to a continuance to the next Planning Commission meeting so that he may meet with the Planning Department staff for recommendations. IxI Motion was made to continue Use Permit -No. 3091 es (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * x x -14- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS UP3178 residential - commercial structure on property located in MINUTES the C -1 District, which exceeds the 26 foot basic January 9, 1986 Continued X x to the Zoning Code so as to allow tandem and compact 1 -23 -86 c o parking; a nine foot, nine inch high wall along the `S y V 9 9 into the required ten foot rear yard setback; and to 2 C M D m 2 portion of the second floor of the proposed building to c z w o r 0 0 z m > � m City of Newport Beach M MM = a R LL CALL INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3178 (Public Hearing) - 11tem No.7 Request to permit the construction of a combined UP3178 residential - commercial structure on property located in 8821 the C -1 District, which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Continued District. The proposal also includes a modification to to the Zoning Code so as to allow tandem and compact 1 -23 -86 parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking; a nine foot, nine inch high wall along the easterly side property line that encroaches nine feet into the required ten foot rear yard setback; and to allow a portion of the required parking spaces and a portion of the second floor of the proposed building to encroach into the required. 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. M101 B. Resubdivision No. 821 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots and eliminate an interior lot line so as to create a single building site on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4, Section One, Block 9, Balboa Island, located at 504 South Bay Front, between Agate Avenue and Opal Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Mitchell R. Brown, Urban Assist, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNERS: . Robert and Rita Teller, Newport Beach Motion 1X1 Motion was made to continue this matter to the Planning All Ayes Commission meeting of January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x * s Use Permit No. 3179 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to permit the establishment of a private, no UP3179 fee, commercial parking lot on property located in the R -2 District which is adjacent to property located in the C -1 District. -15- VIMISSIVIVtKS MINUTES January 9, 1986 x x C o � _ C v > x m c Z 0 v m r o 0 City of Newport Beach utilized by his tenants, being Franklin Realty, La p Cantina Liquor, Corona del Mar Laundry and Dry Cleaning INDEX LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 438, Corona del Mar, employees need more than eight parking spaces, and the Continued located at 416 Larkspur Avenue, on the to commercial tenants in the area. Commissioner Koppelman southeasterly side of Larkspur Avenue, 2_20 -86 cited that she was not aware that the Quiet Woman between East Coast Highway and Second Restaurant would be able to utilize the parking lot. Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Mike Franklin,.Corona del Mar OWNER: Franklin Inter Vivos Trust, Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mike Franklin, 3250 East Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner -16- Koppelman regarding who will be using the parking lot, Mr. Franklin replied that the parking lot will be utilized by his tenants, being Franklin Realty, La Cantina Liquor, Corona del Mar Laundry and Dry Cleaning and the Quiet Woman Restaurant. He stated that the employees need more than eight parking spaces, and the parking lot will provide more parking for other commercial tenants in the area. Commissioner Koppelman cited that she was not aware that the Quiet Woman Restaurant would be able to utilize the parking lot. Mr. Franklin replied that he had contacted staff after reviewing the staff report and advised that the Quiet Woman would be using the parking lot. Commissioner Koppelman referred to the condition that states that one end of the parking lot will be secured by a locked chain at 6:00 p.m., and she commented that she has a concern for the neighbors adjacent to the parking lot. She asked Mr. Franklin if he would object to a posted sign that the parking lot is private property, prohibiting parking after 6:00 p.m., and any automobiles after 6:00 p.m. will be subject to being towed? Mr. Franklin replied that he has no objection to the private parking sign, but that he would object to no parking after 6 :00 p.m. Chairman Person asked Assistant City Attorney Carol Korade if the Planning Commission could condition a private parking lot so as • to restrict parking after 6:00 p.m. and if there is parking, could the automobiles be towed? Ms. Korade -16- answered that the Planning Commission cannot mandate towing from private property, and that the towing would have to be initiated by the property owner. Ms. Korade responded to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman that a condition could state, that the applicant could mandate that the automobiles will not park in the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Turner cited that the condition states that the employee may not enter the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. but he opined that an.employee should not be concerned about his automobile being towed away if his automobile is in the parking lot at 7:00 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer, Mr. Franklin replied that the Quiet Woman Restaurant's operating hours are from 11:00 a.m, to 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Eichenhofer expressed her concern that the restaurant's employees will arrive at the subject parking lot at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Franklin advised that he has a concern regarding an automobile being towed from the proposed parking lot if the automobile would be parked there over a period of several days. Chairman Person reminded Mr. Franklin that as the property owner he would have that control and the Planning Commission cannot mandate towing from private property. January 9, 1986 a � C o Franklin replied that he has had control of the tenants a z c o m > v y m m z over the past 25 years. Mr. Hewicker cited that at the cz M m w o oz o M m> m o T `/ Cit of Newport Beach Z a z z m i Restaurant in 1974, the plot plan that was submitted by answered that the Planning Commission cannot mandate towing from private property, and that the towing would have to be initiated by the property owner. Ms. Korade responded to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman that a condition could state, that the applicant could mandate that the automobiles will not park in the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Turner cited that the condition states that the employee may not enter the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. but he opined that an.employee should not be concerned about his automobile being towed away if his automobile is in the parking lot at 7:00 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer, Mr. Franklin replied that the Quiet Woman Restaurant's operating hours are from 11:00 a.m, to 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Eichenhofer expressed her concern that the restaurant's employees will arrive at the subject parking lot at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Franklin advised that he has a concern regarding an automobile being towed from the proposed parking lot if the automobile would be parked there over a period of several days. Chairman Person reminded Mr. Franklin that as the property owner he would have that control and the Planning Commission cannot mandate towing from private property. -17- MINUTES INDEX In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Franklin replied that he has had control of the tenants over the past 25 years. Mr. Hewicker cited that at the time a use permit was processed for the Quiet Woman Restaurant in 1974, the plot plan that was submitted by the applicant showed that there was a distance of 30 feet between the back of the building and the 14 foot wide alley. He said that the plan also showed a parking lot with 90 degree parking in the back of the building, and there was a fence and a gate around the rear exit to the restaurant, indicating that there was a trash area between the back of the building and the alley on the westerly side of the property. He cited that it appears that a chain link fence has subsequently been constructed almost out to the alley right -of -way line along the westerly side of the property, and a metal shed put in the area. In addition, all of the trash is now stored in the required 10 foot alley setback in the back of the Quiet Woman Restaurant and in the back of the automotive -17- MINUTES INDEX ROLL January 9, 1986 Beach MINUTES business to the west, utilizing the area that was to be used for delivery vehicles, and forcing the vehicles to use the alley for loading and unloading. He further stated, that as a consequence, the automobies that would be leaving the parking lot, going toward Marguerite Avenue, would be blocked by the delivery trucks at the Quiet Woman Restaurant. Mr. Franklin replied that he does not know when the shed and fence were constructed. Mr. Hewicker cited that the parking lot to the rear of the real estate office easterly of the subject property has recently been restriped and that either the wheel stops have been removed or were never there, allowing the automobiles pulling in off of the alley to encroach into the sidewalk area and forcing the pedestrians out onto the street or into the parkway. Mr. Franklin replied that the wheel stops will be put back into place. • In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Hewicker replied that the aforementioned shed and fence creates a problem for the proposed parking lot. Mr. Franklin stated that he will personally have the shed removed from the Quiet Woman Restaurant's premises. Mr. Kelly Pyle, 417 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit. Mr. Pyle cited that he resides directly in back and across the alley from the proposed parking lot. He stated that the employees of the Quiet Woman Restaurant were able to park their automobiles behind the restaurant in 1977. Mr. Pyle opined that the parking lot's proposed chain and spiked barriers will disturb the residents, and that he objected to the storage of vehicles for several successive days as previously stated by Mr. Franklin. He commented that the staff report did not mention that the Quiet Woman Restaurant as a user of the parking lot, whereas the staff report stated that the automotive garage would utilize the parking lot and he asked if the automotive garage is a tenant? Mr. Hewicker replied that the garage is not a tenant. Mr. James Dunlap, 419 Marguerite Avenue, appeared • before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit. Mr. Dunlap commented that the delivery trucks that unload for the Quiet Woman Restaurant and the liquor store prohibit automobiles from passing in the alley, which forces the automobiles to back up onto Second Avenue. He opined that the automobiles -18- x x c o e a v = v , y m z c m a m z m 9 D r 0 S M m `Z W o °; a m a ° r °City Of Z a z p z m m m January 9, 1986 Beach MINUTES business to the west, utilizing the area that was to be used for delivery vehicles, and forcing the vehicles to use the alley for loading and unloading. He further stated, that as a consequence, the automobies that would be leaving the parking lot, going toward Marguerite Avenue, would be blocked by the delivery trucks at the Quiet Woman Restaurant. Mr. Franklin replied that he does not know when the shed and fence were constructed. Mr. Hewicker cited that the parking lot to the rear of the real estate office easterly of the subject property has recently been restriped and that either the wheel stops have been removed or were never there, allowing the automobiles pulling in off of the alley to encroach into the sidewalk area and forcing the pedestrians out onto the street or into the parkway. Mr. Franklin replied that the wheel stops will be put back into place. • In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Hewicker replied that the aforementioned shed and fence creates a problem for the proposed parking lot. Mr. Franklin stated that he will personally have the shed removed from the Quiet Woman Restaurant's premises. Mr. Kelly Pyle, 417 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit. Mr. Pyle cited that he resides directly in back and across the alley from the proposed parking lot. He stated that the employees of the Quiet Woman Restaurant were able to park their automobiles behind the restaurant in 1977. Mr. Pyle opined that the parking lot's proposed chain and spiked barriers will disturb the residents, and that he objected to the storage of vehicles for several successive days as previously stated by Mr. Franklin. He commented that the staff report did not mention that the Quiet Woman Restaurant as a user of the parking lot, whereas the staff report stated that the automotive garage would utilize the parking lot and he asked if the automotive garage is a tenant? Mr. Hewicker replied that the garage is not a tenant. Mr. James Dunlap, 419 Marguerite Avenue, appeared • before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit. Mr. Dunlap commented that the delivery trucks that unload for the Quiet Woman Restaurant and the liquor store prohibit automobiles from passing in the alley, which forces the automobiles to back up onto Second Avenue. He opined that the automobiles -18- January 9, 1986 of Newport Beach utilizing the proposed parking lot will only increase the traffic in the alley, and he commented that there is currently heavy traffic generated by the automotive garage. Mr. Dunlap voiced his concern that the parking lot could lower the property, values in the area, and that the chain link fence adjacent to the Quiet Woman Restaurant, the removal of the wheel stops, and the trash in the parking area and in the parkway has been detrimental to the neighborhood. MINUTES Mr. Robert Borland, 420 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit. Mr. Borland stated his concern that the employees of the Quiet Woman Restaurant would be leaving the proposed parking lot between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. while the nearby residents are sleeping, and that guests of the Quiet Woman Restaurant could walk . through the parking lot to approach their automobiles parked on Larkspur Avenue. T x C o � Mr. Doug Ashton, 418 1/2 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ashton recommended x x _ v m z c C m a m z m a z z r x M= N o S 0 0 0 a 2 9 Z m 9 2 r m _ January 9, 1986 of Newport Beach utilizing the proposed parking lot will only increase the traffic in the alley, and he commented that there is currently heavy traffic generated by the automotive garage. Mr. Dunlap voiced his concern that the parking lot could lower the property, values in the area, and that the chain link fence adjacent to the Quiet Woman Restaurant, the removal of the wheel stops, and the trash in the parking area and in the parkway has been detrimental to the neighborhood. MINUTES Mr. Robert Borland, 420 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit. Mr. Borland stated his concern that the employees of the Quiet Woman Restaurant would be leaving the proposed parking lot between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. while the nearby residents are sleeping, and that guests of the Quiet Woman Restaurant could walk . through the parking lot to approach their automobiles parked on Larkspur Avenue. Mr. Dave Ashton, 418 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission stating his opposition to the use permit because of the noise created by the employees and patrons of the Quiet Woman Restaurant. He cited that the parking lot will eliminate two parking spaces currently on Larkspur Avenue, and that there could be visual safety hazards for the neighbors leaving the garage adjacent to the proposed parking • lot. Mr. Howard Ashton, 418 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit, by stating his concern regarding the Quiet -19- Mr. Doug Ashton, 418 1/2 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ashton recommended that the use permit be denied, since there will be an increase in the traffic flow and pedestrian traffic in a narrow alley that is also used by the area's residents and the automotive garage. He cited how the alley is unsafe because of the traffic flow created by the parked delivery trucks in the alley. Mr. Ashton expressed his concern that the parking lot would not be adequately patrolled by the applicant because of the parking lot's isolated location, that if the City had to revoke the use permit because of numerous violations then there would only be a vacant lot. Mr. Ashton emphasized that he would contact the Police Department regarding any violations that would be taking place in the parking lot. Mr. Dave Ashton, 418 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission stating his opposition to the use permit because of the noise created by the employees and patrons of the Quiet Woman Restaurant. He cited that the parking lot will eliminate two parking spaces currently on Larkspur Avenue, and that there could be visual safety hazards for the neighbors leaving the garage adjacent to the proposed parking • lot. Mr. Howard Ashton, 418 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit, by stating his concern regarding the Quiet -19- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 z C c O O Ashton that the staff report does not mention the Quiet i y o m Z C m y m z Woman Restaurant as a user of the parking lot because C z N 0 3 o o 1 9 i City of Newport Beach z z z T staff was not informed of same until the applicant Woman Restaurant and that the restaurant's employees and patrons will be able to exit the parking lot any time after 6:00 p.m. He commented that his interpretation of the staff report was that the parking lot would close at 6:00 p.m. -Mr. Ashton emphasized his concern regarding the construction of the parking lot and how the proposed adobe wall could affect the stability of his dwelling. Mr. Webb explained that the proposed parking lot plans will be processed by the Building Department, and that prior to the issuance of a Building. Permit the applicant's plans must conform to the Uniform Building Code and the Grading Code. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she originally supported the idea of allowing the eight parking spaces on the subject parking lot, and she had personally observed the delivery trucks in the alley and the automobiles backing out of the alley because they were unable to pass. she explained that now that the Quiet Woman Restaurant will be a user of the parking lot there would be no guarantee that the users of the parking lot will depart by 6:00 p.m. Furthermore, she said that she could not support the parking lot until she has a better understanding of the traffic in the alley, who will use the parking lot, and the control of the noise that will exist. I I I I 1X1 I I Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to continue this item to February 20, 1986. -20- MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Kurlander and Mr. Hewicker informed Mr. Ashton that the staff report does not mention the Quiet Woman Restaurant as a user of the parking lot because staff was not informed of same until the applicant informed the Planning Commission this evening that the restaurant's employees would be utilizing the parking lot. Commissioner Koppelman asked Mr. Hewicker if the • staff's recommendation of approval would have been the same if the Quiet Woman Restaurant had been included as a user of the parking lot? Mr. Hewicker replied that staff may have recommended denial if staff had known that the delivery trucks had to use the alley as a loading and unloading area for the restaurant, that there appears to be an encroachment into the alley setback, and that the applicant is allowing automobiles to use the City's sidewalk as a parking area. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she originally supported the idea of allowing the eight parking spaces on the subject parking lot, and she had personally observed the delivery trucks in the alley and the automobiles backing out of the alley because they were unable to pass. she explained that now that the Quiet Woman Restaurant will be a user of the parking lot there would be no guarantee that the users of the parking lot will depart by 6:00 p.m. Furthermore, she said that she could not support the parking lot until she has a better understanding of the traffic in the alley, who will use the parking lot, and the control of the noise that will exist. I I I I 1X1 I I Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to continue this item to February 20, 1986. -20- MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Goff commented that the applicant is responsible to resolve the issues. He stated that he originally supported the parking lot, and that the parking lot would act as a buffer between commercial and residential areas. He posed the following questions: Is it possible to limit the period of time that an automobile can be parked or stored in the subject parking lot? Is it possible to limit the type of vehicles to be parked or stored? Is it possible to add a condition that the parking lot would be maintained free of trash? Could the noise emanating from the Quiet Woman Restaurant be resolved by allowing only the use of the front door? He stated that if the parking lot excluded the use of the Quiet Woman Restaurant that he would be agreeable to approving the use permit. I I I Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion and she further supported the remarks made previously by Commissioner Goff except for the suggestion that only the front door of the Quiet Woman Restaurant be utilized. Commissioner Winburn further explained that she felt that the applicant could resolve the problems relating to the alley encroachments. Chairman Person advised that he will support the motion, and that he felt that the applicant will be able to resolve the concerns of the community with the assistance of staff. He expressed his approval of the need for a parking lot in the Corona del Mar area. All Ayes I I I I Februarya20,To Use Permit NO. 3179 to 1986. MOTION CARRIED. • The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. * * x -21- MINUTES INDEX January 9, 1986 x x C o = y m C z c o m a m = M `Z N Z o >ooi m T m City Y f Newport p Beach a Commissioner Goff commented that the applicant is responsible to resolve the issues. He stated that he originally supported the parking lot, and that the parking lot would act as a buffer between commercial and residential areas. He posed the following questions: Is it possible to limit the period of time that an automobile can be parked or stored in the subject parking lot? Is it possible to limit the type of vehicles to be parked or stored? Is it possible to add a condition that the parking lot would be maintained free of trash? Could the noise emanating from the Quiet Woman Restaurant be resolved by allowing only the use of the front door? He stated that if the parking lot excluded the use of the Quiet Woman Restaurant that he would be agreeable to approving the use permit. I I I Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion and she further supported the remarks made previously by Commissioner Goff except for the suggestion that only the front door of the Quiet Woman Restaurant be utilized. Commissioner Winburn further explained that she felt that the applicant could resolve the problems relating to the alley encroachments. Chairman Person advised that he will support the motion, and that he felt that the applicant will be able to resolve the concerns of the community with the assistance of staff. He expressed his approval of the need for a parking lot in the Corona del Mar area. All Ayes I I I I Februarya20,To Use Permit NO. 3179 to 1986. MOTION CARRIED. • The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. * * x -21- MINUTES INDEX • • January 9, 1986 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX Use Permit No. 3180 (Public Hearing) - Iltem No.9 Request to permit the establishment of an animal veter- UP3180 inary hospital on property located in the C -1 -H District. Approved LOCATION: Lots 58, 59 and 60, Tract No. 1210, located at 1610 West Coast Highway, across from the Balboa Bay Club. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Jeffery S. Cohen, Capistrano Beach OWNER: Joseph T. Vallejo, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that staff has suggested that an additional condition of approval be added to Exhibit "A ", stating that the applicant obtain a professional engineer practicing in acoustics who shall provide a plan restricting noise generated as a result of the business. Mr. Hewicker explained that the purpose of the added condition is that there is a concern that there would be a possibility of barking dogs that would be heard by the residents in the adjoining residential area. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Dr. Jeff Cohen, 27025 Azul, Capistrano Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Cohen stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of staff's recommendation of Condition No. 4 stating "that no animals shall be left unattended overnight or at any other time ". Dr. Cohen submitted a written statement as a rebuttal to the recommended Condition No. 4 by staff who reasoned that the animals could create noise when the business is unattended in the evening. Dr. Cohen stated that in Orange County the vast majority of veterinary hospitals are left unattended overnight because of space limitations and the added expense that has to be passed on to the client. He reasoned that the patients of a critical nature go to an emergency clinic or he solely attends to the patient; the patients that remain in the hospital are considered stable but need hospitalization; that many pet owners are out of town while their pets are being cared for and it is not practical for the pet owners to take -22- x x C o � x m z c C m a z m a r z r o x C 2 m 0 p; 0 0 s D Z M Z M z M m • • January 9, 1986 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX Use Permit No. 3180 (Public Hearing) - Iltem No.9 Request to permit the establishment of an animal veter- UP3180 inary hospital on property located in the C -1 -H District. Approved LOCATION: Lots 58, 59 and 60, Tract No. 1210, located at 1610 West Coast Highway, across from the Balboa Bay Club. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Jeffery S. Cohen, Capistrano Beach OWNER: Joseph T. Vallejo, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that staff has suggested that an additional condition of approval be added to Exhibit "A ", stating that the applicant obtain a professional engineer practicing in acoustics who shall provide a plan restricting noise generated as a result of the business. Mr. Hewicker explained that the purpose of the added condition is that there is a concern that there would be a possibility of barking dogs that would be heard by the residents in the adjoining residential area. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Dr. Jeff Cohen, 27025 Azul, Capistrano Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Cohen stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of staff's recommendation of Condition No. 4 stating "that no animals shall be left unattended overnight or at any other time ". Dr. Cohen submitted a written statement as a rebuttal to the recommended Condition No. 4 by staff who reasoned that the animals could create noise when the business is unattended in the evening. Dr. Cohen stated that in Orange County the vast majority of veterinary hospitals are left unattended overnight because of space limitations and the added expense that has to be passed on to the client. He reasoned that the patients of a critical nature go to an emergency clinic or he solely attends to the patient; the patients that remain in the hospital are considered stable but need hospitalization; that many pet owners are out of town while their pets are being cared for and it is not practical for the pet owners to take -22- VIMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES X C O n f a v m y 9 r v Z C m y m Z C Z V. 0 r 0 0 Z z m z T m City of Newport Beach p INDEX their pets from the hospital on a daily basis; that the architect will ensure that measures will be taken to control noise both within the hospital and to the outside; that the applicant is legally bound by an agreement in his lease stating that "Lessee promises and agrees to avoid any use or condition of the Premises which will result in any noise or odor being perceptible of the occupants or invitees of the adjoining business establishment "; that the entire business of the veterinary hospital will take place indoors; that the animals quiet down when the lights are out and the activity ceases at the end of the day; that the .cages and runs are designed so that the confined pet will not be within sight of another pet; that a motion detector alarm system will be installed on the premises so that the doctor will be alerted should any pet get loose within the hospital; that the doctor will have sleeping accommodations the times he may need to remain on the premises overnight and when he is not on the premises the doctor can be reached by a telephone pager system. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner, Dr. Cohen replied that the hours the hospital is attended are generally between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. or later; and that he lives approximately 25 minutes from the hospital. Commissioner winburn opined that because Dr. Cohen will be specializing in internal medicine there would be a necessity for an attendant to be on duty at all times. Dr. Cohen replied that 80% of his practice will be general practice, and 20% will be referrals for internal medicine. He stated that the critical patient will require that the doctor remain at the hospital, or the patient will be taken home with the doctor, or that the patient will be transferred to an emergency clinic. Dr. Cohen emphasized that he is concerned with upgrading the aesthetics of the hospital by controlling the odor control and noise control. Commissioner Goff asked staff the intent of Condition No. 2 which states "that noise and odor from the animals shall be contained within the facility ". Mr. Hewicker replied that staff is concerned with the noise • and odor control. Commissioner Goff asked the intent of the aforementioned Condition No. 4 regarding no animals to be left unattended overnight. Mr. Hewicker -23- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES Substitute I I I I Commissioner Winburn made a substitute motion to Motion approve Use Permit No. 3180, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", adding the X new Condition No. 3. Chairman Person stated that he will not support the substitute motion because Condition No. 4 has not been recommended in previous veterinary hospital applications, and the costs could be an undue burden on the applicant. -24- x 7 - c o x - m z c C m o m = �= N oFoo M a= a= m m M City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL stated that the condition has no planning aspect of the application, that the condition has not previously been required of previously approved veterinary hospitals, and that the condition could be best decided by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Winburn opined that a client is charged for the overnight stay of an animal; therefore, there should be an attendant on duty during the night to care for the patient. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner regarding the patient's care on holidays and week -ends, Dr. Cohen replied that there is an attendant at the hospital 7 days a week, and if a patient needs care someone will be on duty to treat the patient, or if the. patient needs constant supervision then the patient will be transferred to an emergency clinic. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion X Commissioner Goff made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3180, subject to the findings and conditions of • approval in Exhibit "A ", adding new Condition No. 3 stating that "prior to the issuance of permits for improvements of the building, the applicant shall obtain the services of a professional engineer practicing in acoustics. Said engineer shall provide the applicant and the Planning Department with a plan or a list of the measures required, such as insulation, air locks, etc., to restrict all noise generated as a result of the business to the interior of the building. Said measures shall be incorporated in the improvement of the building and the engineer shall certify to the Planning Department that the sound attenuation measures have been properly installed prior to the use opening for business "; and deleting old Condition No.. 4 stating "that no animals shall be left unattended overnight or at any other time ". Substitute I I I I Commissioner Winburn made a substitute motion to Motion approve Use Permit No. 3180, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", adding the X new Condition No. 3. Chairman Person stated that he will not support the substitute motion because Condition No. 4 has not been recommended in previous veterinary hospital applications, and the costs could be an undue burden on the applicant. -24- CO"SS�IONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES z M z z T m City of Newport Beach a 2 N p i 0 0 a ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes X X Substitute motion was voted on to approve Use Permit Noes X X K X X No. 3180 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Condition No. 3. MOTION DENIED. All Ayes Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3180, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Condition No. 3, and the deletion of the old Condition No. 4. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the applicant's architect has been specif- ically contracted to provide for noise and odor control. is 3. That the Police Department has no objections to the proposed development. 4. That approval of Use Permit No. 3180 will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residuing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That noise and odor from the animals shall be contained within the facility. 3. Prior to the issuance of permits for improvements of the building, the applicant shall obtain the services of a professional engineer practicing in acoustics. Said engineer shall provide the applicant and the Planning Department with a plan • or a list of the measures required, such as insulation, air locks, etc., to restrict all -25- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES FF � n c o s' a v m c T y m i n z A z T m City of Newport Beach _ A ROLL CAII INDEX noise generated as a result of the business to the interior of the building. Said measures shall be incorporated in the improvement of the building and the engineer shall certify to the Planning Department that the sound attenuation measures have been properly installed prior to the use opening for business. 4. That no animals shall be kept on the premises other than those being treated at the animal hospital. 5. That all signs shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. That all new mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from west Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 0 Use Permit No. 3181 (Public Hearing) (Item No.10 Request to establish a restaurant with on -sale alcoho- UP3181 lic beverages on property located in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to allow all of Continued the required parking spaces for the subject restaurant to to be provided within the Lido Marina Village parking 1 -23 -86 structure. -26- 7. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 8. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x 0 Use Permit No. 3181 (Public Hearing) (Item No.10 Request to establish a restaurant with on -sale alcoho- UP3181 lic beverages on property located in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to allow all of Continued the required parking spaces for the subject restaurant to to be provided within the Lido Marina Village parking 1 -23 -86 structure. -26- V�MISSiVNtKS MINUTES January 9, 1986 JC c o o �+ _ v > v x m C z c W c a m z m m o r z a o 0 m m City of Newport Beach z p INDEX LOCATION: Lot 7 and a portion of Lot 8, Tract No. 1235, located at 3422 Via Lido, on the northerly side of Via Lido, between Central Avenue and Via Oporto, adjacent to Lido Marina.Village. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Tadashi Shimada, Torrance OWNER: S. R. Willford, Newport Beach Motion Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning All Ayes Commission meeting of January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3182 (Public Hearing) Item No 11 • Request to establish a take -out restaurant specializing UP3182 in the sale of ice cream, candy, cookies, hot dogs and popcorn on property located in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to waive all of the Approved required parking spaces in conjunction with the pro- posed take -out restaurant. LOCATION: Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block G, Balboa Bay Front Section and a portion of Lots 5 and 6, Resubdivision of Block 9 of the Balboa Tract, located at 307 Main Street, on the westerly side of Main Street between East Bay Avenue and the public boardwalk, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Jorn Caroe, Huntington Beach OWNER: Roger Hannaford, Newport Beach Chairman Person stepped down from the dais, not because of a conflict of interest, but because there is a personal matter concerning a family member who might be affected in this matter. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jorn Caroe, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Caroe stated that he concurs -27- with the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". He commented that the take -out restaurant will be of Danish tradition designed by a Danish architect. Mr. Caroe further commented that he has a similar take -out restaurant in Solvang that has a reputation of cleanliness and quality products. Mr. Caroe advised Commissioner Koppelman that an aebleskiver is a ball- shaped danish pastry that is baked on the premises, and is served in Denmark as a national dish served on special occasions. January 9, 1986 x F Ms. Nada Hannaford, 301 Balboa Boulevard, appeared y 9 9 S i C V T r 9 y m m 2 permit. Ms. Hannaford commented that several residents C Z D W z O i 0 A a T 0 m City of Newport Beach them on short notice. Mr. Hewicker replied that public with the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". He commented that the take -out restaurant will be of Danish tradition designed by a Danish architect. Mr. Caroe further commented that he has a similar take -out restaurant in Solvang that has a reputation of cleanliness and quality products. Mr. Caroe advised Commissioner Koppelman that an aebleskiver is a ball- shaped danish pastry that is baked on the premises, and is served in Denmark as a national dish served on special occasions. Acting Chairman Turner referred Ms. Hannaford to Condition No. 8 that states that all trash shall be stored in the building until scheduled trash pick -up occurs. Mr. Hewicker advised Ms. Hannaford that he is not aware of any permits that require a restaurant to close at 7:00 p.m. because the time would be during the dinner hour; that the youth in the area will have to abide by the 10:00 p.m. curfew hour, and that the subject restaurant will utilize the same loading and unloading zones that the bakery, adjacent food establishments, and the Pavilion use. Ms. Mildred Palyu, owner of a take -out restaurant adjacent to the applicant, appeared before the Planning • Commission. Ms. Palyu commented that the subject business would be a good idea; however, she said that the area needs more positive growth, and she explained -28- MINUTES Ms. Nada Hannaford, 301 Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the use permit. Ms. Hannaford commented that several residents in the area stated that the public notice was mailed to them on short notice. Mr. Hewicker replied that public notices are mailed to residents a minimum of ten days prior to the public hearing. Ms. Hannaford opposed the application because there will be 18 new fast food restaurants in the Fun Zone area; that the Balboa area is seasonal and there are not many visitors during the winter months; that there will be congestion because there is not a loading or unloading zone on Main Street; that the police may have problems with the young people in the area because the business operation will be open until 10:00 p.m.; that there are other businesses in the area that have permits stating that their businesses have to close at 7:00 p.m.; and that trash could be a problem. Acting Chairman Turner referred Ms. Hannaford to Condition No. 8 that states that all trash shall be stored in the building until scheduled trash pick -up occurs. Mr. Hewicker advised Ms. Hannaford that he is not aware of any permits that require a restaurant to close at 7:00 p.m. because the time would be during the dinner hour; that the youth in the area will have to abide by the 10:00 p.m. curfew hour, and that the subject restaurant will utilize the same loading and unloading zones that the bakery, adjacent food establishments, and the Pavilion use. Ms. Mildred Palyu, owner of a take -out restaurant adjacent to the applicant, appeared before the Planning • Commission. Ms. Palyu commented that the subject business would be a good idea; however, she said that the area needs more positive growth, and she explained -28- MINUTES how the Balboa area has become intensely impacted by restaurants by describing sevtfal of the take -out restaurants and fast food restaurants that are currently in business, and the restaurants that will be opening in the Balboa run Zone. She stated that the police have trouble in the area with young people; that there is an on -going problem with trash; and that the parking is limited. Ms. Palyu commented that the businesses in the Balboa area and the Balboa Improvement Association did not receive their public notices in time to submit a recommendation of the subject application. Mr. Hewicker informed Ms. Palyu that the public notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject application a minimum of ten days prior to the hearing, that the Balboa Improvement Association had received a public notice at that time, and that two public notices had been posted in two locations near the subject property. • The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, replied that the Police Department was sent a review request regarding the subject application and that they answered by stating that no police problems were anticipated. Motion I I I I 1XI I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3182, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit „A,.. Commissioner Winburn stated that she supports the motion; however, she further addressed Ms. Palyu by advising that the Planning Commission is concerned about the problem of losing businesses for the residents who reside in the Balboa area, and that so many of the businesses are only visitor serving. Commissioner Winburn cited that the Planning Department is currently compiling information for the Planning Commission regarding these concerns. Acting Chairman Turner agreed with Commissioner Winburn regarding the concerns of how many types of businesses should go into any given area. AID X X X X X X Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3182, MOTION Absent X CARRIED. -29- MINUTES INDEX January 9, 1986 x c o � 2 a v x v r v m z M 0 = o r , 0 , 0 m I City of Newport Beach z how the Balboa area has become intensely impacted by restaurants by describing sevtfal of the take -out restaurants and fast food restaurants that are currently in business, and the restaurants that will be opening in the Balboa run Zone. She stated that the police have trouble in the area with young people; that there is an on -going problem with trash; and that the parking is limited. Ms. Palyu commented that the businesses in the Balboa area and the Balboa Improvement Association did not receive their public notices in time to submit a recommendation of the subject application. Mr. Hewicker informed Ms. Palyu that the public notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject application a minimum of ten days prior to the hearing, that the Balboa Improvement Association had received a public notice at that time, and that two public notices had been posted in two locations near the subject property. • The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, replied that the Police Department was sent a review request regarding the subject application and that they answered by stating that no police problems were anticipated. Motion I I I I 1XI I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3182, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit „A,.. Commissioner Winburn stated that she supports the motion; however, she further addressed Ms. Palyu by advising that the Planning Commission is concerned about the problem of losing businesses for the residents who reside in the Balboa area, and that so many of the businesses are only visitor serving. Commissioner Winburn cited that the Planning Department is currently compiling information for the Planning Commission regarding these concerns. Acting Chairman Turner agreed with Commissioner Winburn regarding the concerns of how many types of businesses should go into any given area. AID X X X X X X Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3182, MOTION Absent X CARRIED. -29- MINUTES INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program,- Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 3. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities, and a portion of required parking, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3182 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That six (6) in -lieu parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the restaurant use and that the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and a portion of required parking shall be waived. • 4. That any seating shall be incidental to the primary take -out operation of the restaurant. -30- MINUTES INDEX January 9, 1986 x n F p v = C z C a m > y a m m z C z a=� N a r a 0 r 0 m 1 City of Newport Beach FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program,- Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 3. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities, and a portion of required parking, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3182 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That six (6) in -lieu parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the restaurant use and that the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and a portion of required parking shall be waived. • 4. That any seating shall be incidental to the primary take -out operation of the restaurant. -30- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 �x c o x a v > v m z c m y m z Z n z m a Z m City of Newport Beach c z w p ar o o W = a ROLL CALL 5. That no on -sale or off -sale of alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 6. That the hours of operation shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 7. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 8. That all trash shall be stored in the building until scheduled trash pick -up occurs. 9. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be provided in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 10. That the sidewalks on Main Street and Edgewater Place shall be kept clean and regularly main- tained. Said sidewalks shall be swept, vacuumed or washed in such a manner that any debris or waste water does not enter the storm drain system. 11. That a washout area for the take -out restaurant trash containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Main Street, public side- walks, and adjoining properties. 13. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the take -out restaurant.facility. 14. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 15. That the Planning Commission may add or modify • conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of -31- MINUTES INDEX • Motion All Ayes 0 MMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 xx c o a y - C a m 2 c m n m z C= w o i o a Z M z a= r m I City of Newport Beach 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. 16. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3184 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment in the former Tiffany's Private Club facility in the C -1 -H District. The proposal also includes a request to purchase in -lieu parking permits from the City on an annual basis, so as to allow a portion of the restau- rant parking to be provided in the City Hall Employee parking lot. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to use a valet parking service in conjunction with the parking proposal. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 60 -43 (Resubdivision No. 433), located at 3388 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido, between Via Oporto and Via Malaga, adjacent to Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Tiffany's Astrological Club, Newport Beach OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund #12, Ltd., Marina del Rey Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x -32- MINUTES Item No. 12 UP3184 Continued to 1-23-86 COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES x x C o � C n v v m z c m a m z I z N v S 0 0 Z a z 9= r m City of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 3185 (Public Hearing) I Item No.13 Request to permit the construction of an office build - UP3185 ing in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Continued Foot Height Limitation District and contains a gross to structural area in excess of .5 times the buildable 1 -23 -86 area of the site. The proposal also includes a modifi- cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact and tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking. As an option to the tandem parking spaces, the applicant is willing to purchase an equal amount of in -lieu parking spaces on an annual basis in the Mariner's Mile Municipal Parking Lot. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Lot 45, Tract No. 1133, located at 2620 Avon Street, on the northerly side of Avon Street, between Riverside Avenue • and Tustin Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: James Adams, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning All Ayes Commission meeting of January 23, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 630 (Public Hearing) Item No.14 Request to add Chapter 19.14 to the Newport Beach Muni- cipal Code and establish regulations for Vesting A630 Tentative Maps for residential subdivisions as required by the Government Code of the State of California. The Approved proposal also includes the acceptance of an environ- mental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach • James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter submitted by The Irvine Company, addressed to the Planning Commission, dated January 9, 1986 regarding Vesting Tentative Maps and the subject Amendment. -33- MMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 MINUTES X c O x m C _ W m z m Z C m z a=° m City of Newport Beach C z m o S O O Mr. Hewicker stated that according to his understanding, the reason for this legislation regarding Vesting Tentative Maps for residential subdivisions, is that there have been problems in the past where a developer had received the discretionary approvals from a City for the zoning, the tentative map, etc., then the developer expends considerable amounts of money and had an engineer prepare working drawings, grading plans, etc. that are preparatory to the time he returns to the City and applies for a Building Permit, only to find out that the City proposes to change the zoning or development standards, etc. He further stated that the purpose of this vesting law is to convey to the applicant that at the time he files the tentative subdivision map, there will be a guarantee that he will be able to develop the property in accordance with the zoning regulations and the policies of the City that existed at the time he filed the map. Mr. Hewicker further commented that the map is vested at that point, and that allows the developer 11111111 to expend the money necessary to prepare all of the 0 plans, knowing that the project is not going to be thwarted by subsequent changes in land use laws. Mr. Hewicker stated that The Irvine Company has indicated that when they come to the City for discretionary approval, plans may be revised, inasmuch as the Planning Commission might like to see a different type of a setback, or a different arrangement of parking spaces, etc. Mr. Hewicker commented that staff agrees with the concept of concurrent processing of zoning requests, tentative maps, environmental documents, etc. He further commented that it could be conceivable if all of the necessary information is not presented at the time the developer asks for the Vesting Tentative Map, and then proceeds to prepare an environmental document for the tentative map without having the required zoning, another environmental document may have to be prepared to address the questions that may arise as a result of the site plan and zoning document. Mr. Hewicker explained that in the absence of not having an Ordinance in the Municipal Code, and a . subdivider came to the City and asked for a Vesting Map, the City would still be required to process that map as a Vested Tentative Map. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the Planning Commission approve the Amendment, and later if the City has problems, then the staff .would work out the problems with any developer. -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Mr. Dmohowski opined that the building industry has January 9, 1986 forced the state legislature for more definition or c o � f a v = - 2 C C v T v D m m 2 C 2 D N p; O T o m City of Newport Beach a of structures, yet the process that a developer goes 9 ALL long, and that market conditions and financing can change during that period. He further opined that the INDEX Commissioner Turner confirmed with Mr. Hewicker that a developer has the option of filing for an ordinary tentative tract map. Mr. Hewicker replied that the Ordinance would not replace the developer's desire to file just a regular tentative map. Commissioner Turner opined that when the developer requests a Vesting Map that the developer has a good idea of what he wants to do with the property and should be prepared with a "detailed" set of plans and documentation, and that the Ordinance would reflect that procedure. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dmohowski commented that Mr. Hewicker expressed many of the concerns of The Irvine Company. He commented that The Irvine Company may never desire to take advantage of the Vesting Map provision since most of The Irvine Company property is covered under Development Agreements such as for Newport Center and for the North Ford project; however, in 1988 the law will expand to include all tentative maps whether they apply to commercial- industrial or residential uses, so there may be some precedent setting value. -35- Mr. Dmohowski opined that the building industry has forced the state legislature for more definition or certainty under what constitutes "vesting ", and he explained that under some Court cases that vesting is defined when you do substantial work under the issuance of a Building Permit, such as foundations, or framing of structures, yet the process that a developer goes through to get to that point is two to three years long, and that market conditions and financing can change during that period. He further opined that the law gives the developer a little more certainty that the developer would have the right to complete the project under the assumptions and regulations that the developer went 'under when the project was approved. Mr. Dmohowski commented that at the time of filing, the developer is aware of what the architecture, floor plans, etc. are, but that the level of detail may be considered a little bit excessive, such as improvement plans, precise grading plans, and landscape and irrigation plans. He said that basic site plan information, architectural features, and floor plans are normally available at the time of filing the Vesting Maps except for very large scale or long term phase projects. -35- 40 Motion All Ayes • COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1986 x X c o � x > 9 _ C a m z c m y m z C 2 W p r o o i z a z x m m I City of Newport Beach z Mr. Dmohowski opined that zoning consistency has been a typical City practice to allow concurrent processing, such as zoning along with a tentative map, especially in the case of Planned Community Districts, and that if the City would consider the language in the model Ordinance prepared by the League of Cities, that language would effectively implement the intent of the current State law. Mr. Hewicker commented that a problem with a conditional approval of the tentative map is that the State law says that a local jurisdiction can approve a tentative map on the condition that the zoning will be changed to make the zoning and the tentative map conform at a later date.. He opined that if the Planning Commission approves the Vesting Map now, with a condition that the zoning will be changed later, and prepare the tentative map, and the environmental documentation that goes with it just to govern the tentative map, and the zoning creates a problem that cannot be mitigated, how do you deny the zoning? He stated that he does not like the concept of approving one action now and almost obligating the Planning Commission to approve another discretionary approval at a later date. Mr. Dmohowski replied that if there is an inconsistency situation with the knowledge that zoning would need to be amended concurrently or in the future, then there would be an obligation to include that situation in the original environmental document. He commented that if the City is willing to approve a project under a tentative map, and agreed with the project, then the City may be willing to approve the type of zoning necessary to allow that tentative map to be implemented in the future. The 'public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Turner commented that the subdivider has the option, as to whether he wants to file a tentative map or a Vesting Tentative Map. X1 I I I I Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 630 and forward the proposal to City Council. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * r -36- MINUTES INDEX MM1551(�NtKS January 9, 1986 MINUTES xx C O 0 R E P O R T F R O M AD H O C C O M M I T T E E : _ r v > v m z c m y m z Report a z A= T r I City of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff discussed the proposed recommenda- From Ll Commissioner Kurlander and Current Planning Adminis- trator Laycock discussed what the applicant of the Mucho Munchies Restaurant in Corona del Mar is doing to resolve the odor and smoke from the subject restaurant facility. ADJOURNMENT: 10:47 P.M. PAT EICHENOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -37- R E P O R T F R O M AD H O C C O M M I T T E E : Report Commissioner Goff discussed the proposed recommenda- From tions of the Ad Hoc Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan Ad Hoc Review Committee with the Commission. He stated that Committee the Committee will vote on the proposed revisions to the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan at its next Mariner's meeting on February 19, 1986. He advised that the Mile SAP revisions will include language to the height limit portion of the Specific Area Plan for both sides of West Coast Highway, with special provisions of view corridors of the ocean and bay. Commissioner Goff and City Engineer Webb also reviewed the draft report of the traffic study for the improvements of West Coast Highway and Avon Street with the Commission. x a r A D D I T I 0 N A L B U S I N E S S: Additional Business Planning Director Hewicker informed the Planning . Commission that the proposed development standards for Proposed the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Agenda are scheduled to be on the Planning Commission agenda Items of February 6, 1986, and the General Plan Amendment for Newport Center is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 1986. Ll Commissioner Kurlander and Current Planning Adminis- trator Laycock discussed what the applicant of the Mucho Munchies Restaurant in Corona del Mar is doing to resolve the odor and smoke from the subject restaurant facility. ADJOURNMENT: 10:47 P.M. PAT EICHENOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -37-