Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/1988COMMISSIONERS \Ir 9 �Q 9y REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: January 21, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO ALL INDEX All Present All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICER PRESENT: Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager W. William Ward, Senior Planner Dick Hofstadt, Subdivision Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of January 7. 1988: Minutes of 1 -7 -88 Commissioner Debay requested that Page 30 of the subject Minutes be amended to state that she questioned the Volon. adequacy of one ladies restroom facility for 250 additional theatre seats. All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to approve the January 7, 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Postinz of the Agenda: Posting of the William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on January Agenda 15, 1988. Request Request for Continuance: For Continuam William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicant, El Torito Restaurant, has requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 3293 regarding Cano's • Restaurant, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 18, 1988. COMMISSIONERS N \X\ o Ash 94 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 R ALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. All Ayes 3293 to the Planning. Commission Meeting of February 18, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment No. Hearing) Item No.l GPA 87 -3B Request to consider an amendment to the Land use Element. of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to increase the (Resolu- total allowable development by 560 square feet on tion 1170) property located in Block 500 of Newport Center. Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 550 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that the application consists of enclosing 432 square feet of an area presently in the underground parking area, and add 127 square feet for administrative office use. He explained that the parking area outside of the subject building would be redesigned to accommodate the parking spaces that would be removed in the underground parking. There being.no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to adopt General Plan Amendment No. 87 -3(B) (Resolution No. 1170). Commissioner Debay stated that she would support the motion, and she explained that the site was more intensified by the previous occupants. Motion was made and voted on to approve General Plan All Ayes Amendment No. 87 -3(B) (Resolution No. 1170). MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No 3010 ((Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of a full service automobile service station on property located in the C -1 -H District. The proposed amendment includes a request to • establish a self service car wash facility with gasoline sales. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the proposed car 2- COMMISSIONERS %A N� ;� �AONOiAB 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 RoWbALL INDEX wash structure to encroach 2 feet into a. required 18 foot setback adjacent to an interior property line. UP3010A LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 82 -719 (Resub- All Ayes division No. 681) located at 2121 Bristol Street, on the southeasterly corner of Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue, adjacent to the Santa Ana Heights area. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Tait Associates, Anaheim OWNER: Exxon USA, Inc., Houston The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bob Fiscus, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fiscus stated that he concurred with the findings and conditions as stated in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Commissioner Di Sano made a motion to approve Use Permit All Ayes No. 3010 (Amended) subject to the findings and condi- tions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That adequate off- street parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the proposed develop- ment. 5. That the proposed service station remodel has been designed so as to comply as nearly as possible with the standards for service stations on new sites set forth in Section 20.70.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -3- COMMISSIONERS NOi �n929 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 MO R ALL INDEX 6. That it is necessary to flare the existing drives to improve access to the site so as to accommodate the intensification of the use. 7. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to allow a portion of the building to encroach 2 feet into the required 18 foot interior side yard setback will not, 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 or be detrimental 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. 8. The approval of Use Permit No. 3010 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and building plans, except as noted below. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3010 and Exception Permit No. 12 shall remain in effect. 3. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare from adjacent uses and streets. 4. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the public streets and adjoining properties. 5. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape ar- chitect.. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning • . Department. 6. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 and 20.70 of the Municipal Code, -4- COMMISSIONERS 0 BG p� 9,p'O0 v v� Ash CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROEMALL INDEX except as approved by the Planning Commission or required by State law, and that excess signage shall be removed. 7. That all signs and landscaping shall be designed in accordance with Std. -110 -L and shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic En- gineer. 8. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. That a standard use permit agreement and accom- panying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 10. That at least 15 parking spaces shall be provided on -site. The parking plan shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. • 11. That the vehicular circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 12. That' the southerly drive approach on Irvine Avenue and the drive approaches on Bristol Street be reconstructed with flared drive approaches per City Std - 166 -L. Modification to the standard may be required for the drive approaches located on Bristol Street. A California Department of Transportation permit is required for all work within the Bristol Street right -of -way. 13. That all car wash activities shall be contained within the building. 14. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that the wash area drain shall be equipped with a trap for the collection of auto wash residue. 15. That the service station shall be required to . provide restrooms to its customers during all hours of operation. 16. 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 -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Z January 21, 1988 Ai^�ie�p°'e,°t`m AG ���, . oy 1 � �O y ` 1� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RCMbALL INDEX causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 17. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within twenty -four months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with TS the construction of a banquet /meeting room on the Newporter Resort Hotel property; and the acceptance of .UP3161A an environmental document. Approved AND B. Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which . permitted the construction of additions and improvements to the Newporter Resort Hotel in the Unclassified District. The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a new banquet /meeting room on a portion of the site which is currently used for off - street parking, the construction of a laundry facility and a 180± sq.ft. addition to the "net public area" of the existing Duke's Lounge. The proposal also includes a request to reduce the number of previously required parking spaces that were approved in conjunction with a demonstrated parking formula; the construction of a new access drive and circular drop -off adjacent to Back Bay Drive; and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of additional compact and tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a valet parking service. LOCATION: Parcels 1 and 2, Parcel Map,17 -3, located at 1107 Jamboree Road, northwesterly of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: CSL Newporter Ltd., Beverly Hills OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -6- COMMISSIONERS BG \S\V MINUTES January 21, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROMIRCALL INDEX W. William Ward, Senior Planner, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the subject application. He referred to the staff report addendum recommending the following revisions: (1) In reference to the revised mitigation for the Traffic Study, he explained that the mitigation measure suggested in the original Traffic Study proposed the restriping of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road so as to allow an additional through lane for eastbound traffic. He commented that in order to provide for the alignment of the restriping, an additional right -of -way as well as a major construction project would be necessary and that the estimated cost would be $100,000.00. Mr. Ward stated that the applicant and staff, discussed an alternative which would provide for a restriction of use for 8,000 square feet of the banquet and meeting room facilities within the hotel during the week before 9 :30 a.m, as stated in Revised Condition No. 1. (2) Finding No. 10 was suggested by the Public Works Department regarding the sight distance of the new access driveway and the existing driveways. (3) In reference to the future parking demand for the subject hotel, he stated that because of the uncertainty for the future demand for parking the following findings and conditions be added or revised as stated in the addendum: that Finding No. 12 be added, revise Condition No. 3, and add Condition No. 17 to the subject use permit. Mr. Ward stated that the finding and conditions would allow for the Planning Commission to conduct a review of the use permit one year from the first date of occupancy of the new banquet facility, and that a parking management plan be provided for the Planning Commission to review. Mr. Ward suggested Condition No. 18 be added that would require a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per guest room, which would total 615 parking spaces. (4) He suggested that because the proposed building is within the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District, that a condition be added that would restrict the structure so as not to exceed 26 feet in height. Mr. Ward advised that staff had previously discussed said revisions and additions to Exhibit "A" with the applicant, and the applicant's representative has stated that there are no objections to staff's recommendations. In response to an inquiry posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Ward replied that the 1.5 parking space per guest room was provided from a Parking Demand Study and was . agreed to by the City Traffic Engineer. -7- COMMISSIONERS 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 RO CALL INDEX In response to a clarification regarding Condition No. 17 by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Ward explained that the Planning Commission shall review the use permit one year from the date of the first event in which the new banquet /meeting room is used. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Neish stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". He referred to Condition No. 17 requesting that the applicant submit twelve parking surveys to be made available to the Planning Commission on dates to be determined by the City Traffic Engineer. He stated that the applicants will be able to predict when a problem could occur such as during the months of June and December, because said months have many special events. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding special event attendance figures that the applicant has been requested to submit in accordance with Condition No. 17, Mr. Neish explained that if the banquet /meeting room would be occupied by guests booked at the hotel, that the attendance figures submitted would be a precise count, and that local or civic function attendance figures would be a small .within percentage count. Commissioner Koppelman questioned if there would be adequate space within the parking area to construct a parking structure. Mr. Neish replied that there would be an ample area to construct said structure, if necessary. In reference to Condition No. 17, Chairman Person stated that the recommended condition contains many concerns of the Planning Commission, and he emphasized that if there would be any parking problems after the requested expansion, and if the applicant would be unwilling to construct the parking structure as stated in the condition, that the Planning Commission could request that the applicant not utilize the proposed square footage. He explained that the applicant would be responsible to make other arrangements for on -site parking that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission. Mr. Neish requested that the Planning Commission consider the degree of the parking problem, and other alternatives to a parking structure. Chairman Person requested that staff survey the parking . demands during peak periods of time in addition to the months of June and December, and that an accurate report _g_ COMMISSIONERS i 9Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROLL CALL INDEX be submitted to the Planning Commission. In reference to Condition No. 1 of the Traffic Study which states that 8,000 square feet of the combined floor area of the existing and proposed banquet /meeting rooms shall not be used before 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, Commissioner Pomeroy requested an explanation of why 8,000 square feet. Mr. Laycock replied that it would be difficult to enforce any amount of square footage besides the expansion of 8,000 square feet, and that there is a need to restrict the traffic before 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Neish stated that any 8,000 square feet within the 26,000 square feet of the subject hotel's meeting rooms would be restricted before 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Neish concluded his presentation by stating that The Newporter Resort Hotel is concerned about having adequate parking for their guests; that the revised conditions have not been made by other local hotels; and that The Newporter Resort Hotel has had inadequate meeting rooms which has prohibited them from being able to compete with the other local hotels. Commissioner Debay asked if the John Wayne Tennis Club coordinated events with the subject hotel. Mr. Neish concurred that the two facilities coordinate their events so there would not be a parking conflict, and he pointed out that the subject hotel has the majority of their events booked at least six months in advance so that the peak time periods can be predicted. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Laycock advised that Finding No. 11 was inadvert- ently omitted from the staff report, and he requested that said finding be added as follows: "That Council Policy No. L -2 requires that the unused drive aprons be removed.so as to improve general traffic circulation." Commissioner Koppelman stated that she had a concern regarding the subject hotel's parking demand. She commented that the revisions and added findings and conditions have assured her that the parking problems could be rectified. on Motion was made to approve Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended) subject to the findings and condi- tions in Exhibit "A" including the following additions and revisions to the findings and conditions: revised -9- COMMISSIONERS 1 y�� G�y� Ask q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 RAWALL INDEX Traffic Study Condition No. 1 stating that 8,000 square feet of the banquet /meeting rooms shall not be used before 9 :30 a.m. Monday through Friday ; Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended) new Finding No. 10 regarding adequate sight distance, new Finding No. 11 regarding drive aprons, new Finding No. 12 requesting that additional parking and operations information be submitted for the first year of operation of the new banquet /meeting room, revised Condition No. 3 regarding a parking management plan; add Condition No. 17 requesting that the Planning Commission shall review the subject use permit one year from the date of the first event in which the new ban- quet /meeting room is used, including the following changes to the condition: "..;the number of special events and approximate attendance of said events and the organization, involved;.." and "..,additional on -site parking through the construction of a parking structure or by other means acceptable to the Planning Commission. In the event a parking structure is required and is not built, the applicants shall submit a plan indicating the occupancy and /or use of square footage of the public • facilities to coincide with the level consistent with parking availability, and that said plans shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department "; and add Conditions No. 18 regarding the 1.5 parking spaces per guest room, and No. 19 regarding the 26 foot height restriction.. Commissioner Pomeroy requested that Condition No. 17 be Amended * amended for clarification regarding the first time that 8,000 square feet has been used, and when the use permit should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Discuss- ion followed between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the 8,000 square feet. The maker of the motion agreed to Chairman Person's recommendation that Condition No. 17 be amended to state for clarification "that in addition to the parking conditions taken on the parking survey days, staff shall indicate which rooms are in use at the time of the study." Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion based on added Condition No. 17. He referred to a personal experience that prohibited an organization from using the subject hotel because there were not enough banquet and meeting rooms, which has put the hotel at a marketing disadvantage. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion • because of added Condition No. 17, and the assurances given by the applicants that should there be a parking problem that the applicants will cooperate with the City -10- COMMISSIONERS tim 99 "�99 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROMLALL INDEX to resolve the said problem. All Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including Traffic Study revised Condition No. 1; Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended) new Findings No. 10, No. 11, No. 12; Revised Condition No. 3; and New Conditions No. 17, No. 18, and No. 19. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. • 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Traffic Study: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary- modified', or 'primary' street. Condition: 1. That 8,000 square feet of the. combined floor area of the existing and proposed banquet- /meeting rooms shall not be used before 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday. -11- COMMISSIONERS k A 0 Zm �Z�te9\Irr ,o 9�m91 G9Z� ,p�� _ 92 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX C. Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended) Findines• 1. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. That adequate off- street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. The proposed number of compact car spaces constitutes less than 25 .percent of the parking requirement which is within limits • generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 5. The parking management plan will provide for efficient use of both the upper and lower parking lots on the project site. 6. That the Contingency Parking Plan for addi- tional off -site parking will provide suffi- cient parking for those special occasions in the hotel operation when the demand for parking exceeds the number of available on- site parking spaces. 7. That the off -site parking areas identified in the Contingency Parking Plan are located so as to be useful to the hotel facility. 8. That parking within the off -site parking areas will not create any undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of • persons residing and working in the neighbor- hood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood -12- COMMISSIONERS in 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROLL CALL INDEX or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification to allow the use of additional compact and tandem parking spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 10. That the Traffic Study indicates sight distance deficiencies with the proposed new driveway design and recommends mitigation measures requiring site grading, and other modifications to, provide adequate sight distance. 11. That Council Policy No. L -2 requires that the unused drive aprons be removed so as to improve general traffic circulation. 12. That the additional, parking and operational information required for the first year of operation of the new banquet /meeting room, is necessary to determine the actual parking demand for all levels of operation of the hotel and to determine the extent of use of the proposed off -site parking areas. Conditions: 1. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No 3161 as approved on August 8, 1985 shall.be fulfilled. 2. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, parking plans, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 3. That the applicant, prior to the_ occupancy of the proposed banquet /meeting room, shall prepare a parking management plan which will set forth the parking programs and procedures necessary to support the various levels of activity associated with the operation of the hotel and related uses. Said parking manage- ment plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall also be submitted to the Planning Commission who shall have the ability to call up Use Permit No. 3161 (Amended) for the purpose of reviewing said parking management plan. -13- COMMISSIONERS 4c .o ai Z Gam. � _ 9Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 R6WCALL INDEX 4. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of a Special Events Permit, issued in accor- dance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 5.10, for those occasions when the existing or proposed banquet /meeting rooms are used by large outside groups which will generate a level of activity that will require additional, off -site parking spaces. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circula- tion and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to • obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 8. That the unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Back Bay Drive frontage under an encroach -. ment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That the street, drainage and utility improve- ments be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 10. That the County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer, and storm drain facilit- ies for the on -site improvements prior to issuance, of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water, and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the applicant. -14- COMMISSIONERS �\P00 �o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX 12. That the storm drain system be designed to handle the existing drainage that presently flows through the existing parking lot and across the proposed meeting room site, so as to prevent flooding. The design of the storm drain shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 13. That the berms, signage, fencing, landscaping and parking shall be modified so as to provide required sight distance at the existing and new driveway entrances for a secondary roadway, in conformance with the City Std -110- L. 14. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. • One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 15. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a deter- mination that the level of operation of the hotel and related uses, requires a greater amount of off - street parking than was indi- cated at the time this Use Permit was ap- proved; or if the operation of the hotel and related uses are determined to cause injury, or to be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 16. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as.specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 17. That the Planning Commission shall review this use permit one year from the date of the first event in which the new banquet /meeting room is used. During that one year period, the applicant shall maintain records which shall be made available to the Planning Commission and which will record: the number of special -15- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROMFICALL INDEX events and approximate .attendance of said events and the organization involved; guest room occupancy by month; the number of events in all the existing and proposed banquet or meeting rooms within the hotel and if they were related to guests staying at the hotel or outside groups. During this one year period, the City shall cause to be prepared at the expense of the applicants, twelve parking surveys on dates to be determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The purpose of the Planning Commission's review of this information is to determine the actual parking demand for the various levels of activity of the hotel, and to require, if necessary, additional on -site parking through the construction of a parking structure or by other means acceptable to the Planning Commission. In the event a parking structure is required and is not built, the applicants shall submit a plan indicating the occupancy and /or use of square footage of the public facilities to coincide with the level consistent with parking availability, and that said plans shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Depart- ment. On the date that the parking counts are taken, staff shall indicate what rooms are in use at the time of the study. 18. That a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per guest room shall be provided on -site. 19. That the proposed banquet /meeting room shall not exceed a height of 26 feet, measured from existing grade.. Use Permit No. 3222 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to convert an existing automobile service UP3222 station into an automobile repair facility on property located in the C -1 District. Continued to LOCATION: Lot.l, Block F, Tract No. 323, located at 2 -4 -88 2801 East Coast Highway, on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue, in Corona . del Mar. ZONE: C -1 -16- COMMISSIONERS 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Stephen Gregory Cash, Encinitas OWNER: Same as applicant Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that a letter opposing the subject application has been received from Mr. Donald C. Kollanse, 513 Goldenrod Avenue. Mr. Laycock referred to an addendum to the staff report recommending that Condition No. 14 of Exhibit "A" be deleted which addresses the 13 foot radius corner cutoff at Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway, and that Condition No. 19 be revised to state "that the driveway on East Coast Highway closest to the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway shall be closed.." instead of two driveways as was originally requested. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the 55 gallon drum currently located in the rear of the subject building, Mr. Laycock replied that if the drum is not removed from the premises, then the applicant must screen the drum. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Steve Cash, applicant and property owner, and Mr. Henry Schmidt, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to Chairman Person's questions regarding if the applicants approved the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", Mr. Cash stated that he opposes the conditions requiring curbs, gutters, sidewalk, and tree wells. Mr. Cash requested that he be given an opportunity during the next 18 months to see if the subject business will succeed prior to complying with said conditions, and he stated that he has concerns regarding the cleaning of the soil. Discussion ensued between Chairman Person and Mr. Cash regarding the time frame to cleanse the soil in accordance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Dick Hofstadt, Subdivision Engineer, referred to Condition No. 13 which states that bonding is necessary for the improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. He stated that the property owner would not have to make any public improvements until the building permit is issued. Discussion ensued between Mr. Cash and Mr. Hofstadt regarding the time frame of occupancy and the clean up of the toxic waste. Commissioner Koppelman commented that the toxic clean up must be done prior to occupancy. -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1988 9 9 oy < < yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX The Planning Commission suggested that the use permit be continued until the applicant has had an opportunity to meet with staff so as to clarify his concerns. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the sidewalk adjacent to the service station consists of dirt, weeds, and debris, and he requested that the area be cleaned up. Mr. Cash commented that he was aware of the debris and that he would clean up the site. Mr. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Soffer made comments in reference to the suggested continuation, Condition No. 13 regarding bonding; the issuance of a building permit; the off - street parking requirement; Condition No. 6 regarding the parking of service or pickup vehicles on Goldenrod Avenue or any other public street, and he suggested that a condition could be added that would limit vehicles to space available for parking; and the permitted number of parking spaces. Mr. Jerry King, appeared before the Planning Commission • to state that the Orange County Health Services administers the underground health tank program and is located on 17th Street north of Bristol Street in Santa Ana. He advised that the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board is partially monitoring the cleanup process for the tank program. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. All Ayes 3222 to the February 4, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m._ Use Permit No. 3293 (Public Hearine) Item N0.5 UP3293 Request to permit the expansion of the existing.Cano's Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment so as to increase the "net public area" of Continued the restaurant by converting an existing. exterior deck to to an outdoor dining area. The proposal also includes a 2_18_88 request to convert a portion of the existing enclosed dining area to an outdoor patio dining area, and the approval of a lease for off -site parking purposes for a portion of the required off - street parking. -18- COMMISSIONERS .p o. o� ym V `o 2 sr* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 R CALL INDEX LOCATION: A portion of Lot H, Tract No. 919, located at 2241 West Coast Highway on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue (restaurant site); and Record of Survey 10 -27 located at 2500 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue (off -site parking lot) in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: E1 Torito Restaurant, Inc., Irvine OWNER: Ardell Investment Company, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the February 18, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. ion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit.No. Ayes 3293 to the February 18, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Modification No. 3352 (Anveal)(Public Hearine) Item No.6 Request to permit the retention of an "as built" wall Mod -No. and gate which vary in height from 45± inches to 53± 3352 inches and which encroach 10 feet into the required 10 (Appeal) foot front yard setback where the Municipal Code limits . the height of fences and gates in the front yard setback Denied to no more than 3 feet. LOCATION: Lot 27, Block 5, Section One, Balboa Island, located at 106 Garnet Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Garnet. Avenue, between Park Avenue and South Bay Front, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Lynne Valentine, Balboa Island APPELLANT: Same as applicant OWNER: Same as applicant -19- COMMISSIONERS ym�9,y��`"oy"(��O q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to five letters that were received prior to the public hearing in support of the subject Modification, and to the additional photographs, that were submitted by the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the raised'patio, Mr. Laycock stated that a 3 foot high raised patio cannot be constructed in a front yard setback without a Modification because the Uniform Building Code provides that a rise 30 inches above grade requires a 36 high fence around it for safety reasons. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the subject patio has a 20 inch to 24 inch rise above grade. Mr. Laycock advised that a patio 20 inches to 24 inches above grade would be legal and a protective fence would not be required. Commissioner Debay addressed the Flood Zone on Balboa Island. The public. hearing was opened in connection with this • item, and Ms. Lynn Valentine, applicant and appellant, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that because the patio is raised that she had concerns regarding safety. Ms. Valentine explained that she contacted the City regarding the height requirement for a fence, and she was informed that the height limit of 36 inches for a fence would be permitted in a required front yard setback, and that a higher fence would be permitted, and that it restriction would not be enforced unless there were complaints from her neighbors..She.was told to contact her neighbors for their approval. She stated that she received the neighbors' approval, that she had her fence installed, and then the neighbors immediately objected. Commissioner Debay referred to the staff's recommendation that the gate should be opened into the patio area and not out onto the sidewalk. Commissioner Pomeroy advised that the gate could easily be adjusted. Mr. John Miller, 108 Garnet Avenue, an adjacent neighbor, appeared before the Planning Commission to object to the Modification. He stated that Ms. Valentine asked for his approval of the fence on plans that he could not tell how high the fence would be, and that she advised him that many residents on Balboa Island have high fences in the front yard areas. Mr. Miller stated that his view and his neighbors views are obstructed, and that they are also concerned about the -20- COMMISSIONERS _ q2 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 REWALL INDEX enforcement of the Zoning Code. Ms. Hannah Flynn, 110 Garnet' Avenue, a neighbor; appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the Modification. She stated that her property and the neighbors on the other side of her property have been heavily impacted by the fence because their views have been lost. She stated that many of the residences mentioned in the staff report thit have high fences are located on the bay front or on: Grand Canal. Ms. Flynn stated that the applicant! constructed the fence with the knowledge that the fence did not meet Zoning Code requirements. Ms. Flynn emphasized that because the residences are so dense, the residents must be considerate of each other, and she added that the subject property has been on theireal estate market and she, questioned if the applicant would be a long term resident. Ms. Flynn stated thatjit is difficult to see through grill work on the wrought iron fence. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he had visited the site, and that he was aware of the view obstruction. • In response to questions posed by Chairman, Person and Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Laycock replied that the purpose of the 36 inch high fence requirement in the Zoning Code requirement is to; maintain a more open streetscape, especially on narrow streets and small lots. He stated that a high fei2ce would create a much narrower streetscape, and that by maintaining a 36 inch, fence in a front yard setback, the open space appears wider from one side of the street to the other side of the street. Commissioner Di Sano stated that in addition to the aesthetics of the area, he had concerns regarding raised patios and the flood plane, and; he suggested that the raised patios be required to have fences for protection. Mr. Laycock explained that the flood plane restrictions only refers to interior living space and not to patios or garages. Mr. Laycock further explained that if the patio were constructed 36 inches above grade then the Uniform Building Code would require a 36 inch high fence on top of said ptios, which would be 6 feet above grade. . Commissioner Debay commented that from the patio to the • sidewalk is a substantial drop, and she questioned why a fence would not be required 'if a patio could be constructed that high? Mr. L.aycock replied that a -21- i COMMISSIONERS No0d o Ash y`CZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX building permit is not required for a patio fence that is 36 inches high or less. He explained that a patio constructed 30 inches high or more requires a 36 inch high railing which would require a building permit. Commissioner Debay asked if the Modification were denied by the Planning Commission, would the Planning Commission or the City be liable if someone fell from the patio to the sidewalk? Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the City is liable only for a dangerous condition of public property, and that the subject site is private property. She stated that the Planning Commission would be acting in good faith by enforcing the Uniform Building Code which is sanctioned and required by the State of California. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Merrill stated that the raised patio is the cause of the problem, and that if the builder had contemplated the safety aspects and not elevated the patio, then the wrought iron fence would not have been • needed. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the raised patio was elevated to the same height as the dwelling. He referred to the numerous non - conforming uses similar 'to this type that are not being enforced throughout the City. Mr. Laycock explained that the City has been aware of the nonconforming violations throughout the City, but that a Code Enforcement Officer has never been requested to investigate violations on a block by block basis. Commissioner Koppelman referred to Ms. Valentine's statement that she had contacted someone on staff that had told her the fence that exceeded the permitted 36 inch height would be permitted if she had the approval of her neighbors. She stated that staff should be informed that the policy of the City is that constructing property is not done by consensus but by law. Mr. Laycock stated that the applicant may not have completely understood staff's reply when she asked the question. Commissioner Di Sano pointed out that the City does not protect private views, and that the applicant was attempting to provide safety because of the raised *on * patio. Motion was made to approve Modification No. 3352 subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Di Sano referred to Finding -22- COMMISSIONERS 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 RO CALL INDEX No. 1 which states that there are similar fences and walls that exist elsewhere throughout the City. Commissioner Debay asked the maker of the motion for approval to delete Finding No. 3 and Condition No. 2 regarding the gate be required to open inward towards the subject property. The request was approved by the maker of the motion. Substitute A substitute motion was made to deny Modification No. * 3352 subject to the findings in Exhibit "A ". Motion Commissioner Winburn stated that there are other fences and walls that are taller, but because it is difficult for the Code Enforcement Officers to locate all of the violations, the infractions must be brought to the City's attention by neighbors. She commented that the wrought iron railing is too dense to see through. Commissioner Koppelman stated that although it is not the policy of the City to enforce and to protect private views, when an interested party comes into the City for a modification to the Zoning Code for the height of a fence, then that view impairment can be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, concurred with Commissioner Koppelman's statement. She stated that private views can be analyzed in two different capacities: in granting use permits, as a policy, public views and not private views are protected; however, if a party is seeking to vary an existing law or procedure, then the Planning Commission can and has taken into consideration private views. She explained that standards for modifications to the Zoning Code require that the Planning Commission consider impact upon the surrounding area. Ms. Korade pointed out that the staff report does not state those guidelines. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the substitute motion. Commissioner Debay stated that transparent material could be installed along the side property lines so that the views would not be obstructed, and the wrought iron in the front could be.retained. She commented that her primary concern was the safety factor because of the raised patio. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the original motion. He stated that the applicant contacted the City staff and the neighbors, and that she was led • to believe that the height of the fence was not going to be enforced; that the applicant has a financial investment in the fence; and that he would support -23- COMMISSIONERS %q t` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROEFCALL INDEX proper enforcement in the future so that a similar situation would not reoccur. Ayes * * * * Substitute motion was voted on to deny Modification No. Noes * *' * 3352 subject to the Findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the Planning Commission determined that in this case, the subject wall and gate that exceed the permitted height of 36 inches would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the approval of the wall height could set a precedent. for the approval of other similar requests which could be detrimental to the neighborhood. • 3. That the existing construction obstructs views of the bay from the adjoining residential property.as well as other properties on the easterly side of Garnet Avenue. 4. That the adjoining property owner, Dr. Miller, and others in the neighborhood are opposed to the proposed development. Variance No. 1143 (Public Hearine) Item No.7 Request to permit the retention of an "as built" V1143 enclosed patio that has created a single family dwelling that exceeds the allowable floor area of 1.5 times the Denied buildable area on property located in the R -1.5' District. LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 1, Section One, Balboa Island, located at 120 South Bay Front, on the easterly side of South Bay Front, between Park Avenue and Emerald Avenue, on Balboa Island. • ZONE: R -1.5 -24- COMMISSIONERS yBGO$' t��mte9\Ir� 'oe 9 m'qs. _ 9Z90 oo iy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROVFCALL INDEX APPLICANT: J. A. King & Associates for Merlin Norton /Doug Salisbury, Newport Beach OWNER: Merlin Norton, Balboa Island William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that three letters have been received from the adjacent neighbors in support of the subject existing structure. Commissioner Winburn referred to the staff report's statement that the subject property was "red tagged" in October, 1986, for the enclosure of the atrium and the lattice trellis, and that the Modification Committee had a hearing in December, 1986, only on the trellis. She inquired about the action that was taken by staff after a letter was mailed to the applicant requesting that the applicant return for the variance or remove the room that was meant to be a patio. Mr. Laycock replied that the Modification Committee could only become involved with a modification to the Zoning Code for the fence that exceeds the permitted height, and not the building's intensity, which must be approved by the • Planning Commission through the variance procedure. He stated that staff informed the applicant's representative of the atrium enclosure. The public. hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 550 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King commented that he was not the applicant's representative until after the City Attorney's Office contacted the applicants in 1987. Mr. King explained that because the applicants are Utah residents, they were attempting to resolve the issue from there and that they had retained an architect in Utah; however, after Mr. King was retained by the applicants he contacted the original architect and obtained the original plans. Mr. King explained that after obtaining the original plans, he requested that staff validate the square footage, resulting in a difference of 80 square feet from the figures stated in the staff report, or less than 10 percent over 1.5 times the buildable area. Mr. King stated that the applicants were not aware when he purchased the property that he was under the flight pattern from John Wayne Airport, that he would lose privacy because his adjacent neighbor spread his sails on his roof, and that the noise from the adjacent structure and the boat noise from the . channel would infringe upon his privacy. He explained that the applicant enclosed the patio so as to remove said disturbances. Mr. King stated that the neighbors -25- COMMISSIONERS Zmojt�yt��Q,iA m G�y� NGyyCC �o9c . 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 RM CALL INDEX support the enclosed patio. Chairman Person stated that the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission must make a finding that there are exceptional circumstances to the land, building or use referred to in the application. He indicated that the applicants' statement of support as stated in the staff report does not respond to said finding. Mr. King agreed with Chairman Person. He maintained that the City created some of the exceptional circumstances by allowing the open space to be roofed and by approving the enclosed patio. He explained that if the glass structure would be removed an enclosed patio would remain, and he described the design of the patio. Commissioner Winburn stated that she had been advised by Ms. Cenis, the secretary of the Modifications Committee, that the enclosed atrium was discussed with the applicant because it was noted that the building was red tagged for illegal construction two months prior to the Modifications Committee hearing. Commissioner Winburn commented that she had been advised that the plan submitted to the Modifications Committee consisted of page 2 showing the area as a patio and not as an enclosed atrium. Mr. King stated that no one has denied that the matter was brought to the attention of the property owner, Mr. Norton. Mr. King asked why would the City go ahead and approve an enclosure of the property when they knew the negative values to the property? Mr. Laycock replied that the modification to allow a high fence along a side property line is a different matter than an enclosure of a patio to create additional interior living space. He said that the Modifications Committee approved the lattice fence that was existing between the two properties inasmuch as the adjacent property owner did not have any objections to that fence. Mr. Laycock explained that if the neighbor had objected, the Modifications Committee would have denied the request because it is a very high fence that is situated between two lots. He said that the Modifications Committee felt that the subject fence would not be detrimental to the adjoining property owner if he had no objections. In reference to the enclosure of the structure, Mr. Laycock explained that the enclosed patio adds square footage to the building and the Zoning Code states that development shall not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. He concurred that a roof is permitted in open space areas throughout the City as well as decks with -26- COMMISSIONERS Z�G9� 09yPCC� 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX railings; however, once those areas are completely enclosed, it adds to the bulk of the buildings. Commissioner Winburn referred to A letter that Mr. Norton addressed to staff on January, 29, 1987, regarding his intention to select a new architect so as to comply with the City's requirements. Mr. King related the activities that took place after an architect who was retained in Utah and who was subsequently replaced by the original architect who designed the building. Commissioner Merrill asked questions regarding the plans that were submitted to the Planning Commission by the applicant: the second floor windows between the master - bedroom and the laundry, if the area between the living room and the hall on the first floor flows into the patio area, if the conversions comply with the Energy Code, and if the sliding glass doors could be installed back into the living area? Mr. King responded to the questions by stating that the plans submitted to the Planning Commission are the plans that are currently in existence., that the enclosed atrium is now incorporated into the living area, and that the walls and windows leading into the atrium are all properly insulated and meet the requirements of the Building Code. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the applicant's compliance with the Title 24 energy regulations, Mr. Laycock replied that if the variance is approved, the energy regulations would be reviewed in conjunction with the approval of a building permit that is required. Commissioner Pomeroy asked what material is on the surface of the patio? Mr. King replied that the floor has been constructed of wood for heating purposes and the floor has been carpeted. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1143 subject to the Findings in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion, because she was unable to find circumstances that justify the findings that are required under the law to support the Variance. She explained that the enclosed atrium is located on a lot that is no different . than other properties that are impacted by the John Wayne Airport, and that all of the lots in the area are approximately the same size. _27_ COMMISSIONERS y�G�Z �Zi1+�9CC `vyom9.t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21., 1988 RO CALL INDEX Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Variance No. 1143 Motion * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Debay stated that the design of the house puts a hole in the middle of the residence, and that there is not a purpose for that amount of open space. She stated that she would have supported a Variance requesting the enclosure of that open space. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the substitute motion for the reasons that have been stated. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion to deny the Variance based on the fact that she was not able to find a finding to support the Variance. She questioned if it is right for any citizen to be able to go out and build what the party wants, and then come back later to the Planning Commission to obtain approval? Commissioner Winburn further stated that it is a signal that should not go out into the community that if you get caught, then you will have to come to the Planning Commission to request the, approval of a Variance. She commented that she did not think that it . would be a hardship for the applicant to have to remove the enclosure because the applicant must have been aware at the time that he was enclosing what was considered to be an open space. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion. He explained that from reviewing the site and the plans, that in his opinion the original intent of the property owner was to create an area that could be enclosed, and converted into interior living area. He emphasized that the subject structure is in clear violation of the Zoning Code and was constructed without a building permit. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. He emphatically stated that the Planning Commission is required by the City's regulations to specifically make certain findings for a variance, and he stated that he could not make said findings. He stated that an illegal variance could not be justified. Ayes * * Substitute motion was voted on to approve Variance No. Noes * * * * 1143 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". SUBSTITUTE MOTION DENIED. * * * * Motion was voted on to deny Variance No. 1143 subject to * * the findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. _28_ COMMISSIONERS o. o� _ G�\09 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots on Balboa Island. The lot is similar in area and shape to other lots on Balboa Island where new dwelling units have maintained the required 1.5 times the buildable area. 2. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted floor area is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as it is possible to construct an adequate sized single family dwelling on the site that does conform to the permitted buildable area set forth in the Municipal Code. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, 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 or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the existing construction has been pursued illegally and is outside the scope of activities permitted under Building Permit No. 12333, under which the applicant could construct a new single family residence. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion Items Reauest to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to clarify the No_1 provision that outdoor sales or display of merchandise Title 20 in commercial districts reouire the securing of a use permit unless specifically permitted by the Code. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public ion * Set Public Hearing 1 Ayes hearing on February 18, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. -29- COMMISSIONERS vy . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX Request to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Item 2 Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to consider the installation of boat cranes on property with marine- Title 20 oriented uses in excess of permitted height limits without the requirement of securing a use permit or a Set. Public variance. Hearing INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public All Ayes hearing on February 18, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. A Request to consider amending portions of Districting Item 3 Maps No 9 and 11 so as to rezone all R -4 zoned property to the R -4 (1200) District and all SP -6 (R -4) zoned Title 20 property to the SP -6 (R -4 -1200) District. The property in question is located between McFadden Place and Adams Set Public Street on the Balboa Peninsula. Hearing AND B Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to delete certain provisions which require the removal of dwelling units which exceed the allowable density permitted by the District in which they are located when said dwelling units become 60 years old. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public hearing on March 10, 1988, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Review of Planning Commission Staff Item 4 Report Recommendations. Staff INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Report Recommenda Motion Chairman Person made a motion to state that "staff is tions directed that future staff reports shall contain the pros and cons on all relevant planning issues, including staff's opinion in support of and /or opposition to certain aspects of the application before the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission directs that the Staff Report shall not contain an ultimate recommendation either for approval or denial. -30- COMMISSIONERS tiA A� ;���ONO�B d 9%�AA99 _ 7y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 ROMFCALL INDEX Furthermore, with respect to the Findings and Conditions, in all cases there shall be both Findings and Conditions for Approval as Exhibit "A" and Findings for Denial as Exhibit "B ", unless staff cannot reasonably conceive of Findings for Denial, in which case it shall be so indicated within the body of the Staff Report. In the case of alternative sets of Findings and Conditions for Approval, they shall always be placed in a position, lettered sequentially after Exhibit "A ", prior to the Exhibit containing Findings for Denial." Commissioner Di Sano stated that he had no objections to most of the proposed policy, but his primary concern within the motion and one that he would not support, is that the staff reports shall not contain an ultimate recommendation either for approval or denial from the professional planning staff. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the motion states that "staff reports shall contain .... staff's opinion in • support of and /or opposition to certain aspects of the application ", and that "staff must submit findings for approval and findings for denial except in which case staff cannot find findings for denial." and he explained that staff would be giving opinions throughout the staff reports. Chairman Person explained that the intent of the policy is that the staff should write the staff reports expressing their professional opinions as to particular planning issues, and the only change would be the ultimate recommendation for the entire project at the end of the staff report. Chairman Person stated that the motion eliminates the last paragraph in the staff report recommending approval or denial, and it requests that the Exhibits must occur in order in all cases. In response to questions posed by the Commission, Mr. Laycock replied that each City chooses whether or not staff should make recommendations on planning issues. However, he stated that the City Council has requested that staff make recommendations to them in the staff reports addressed to the City Council from the Planning Department. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports the motion, because it is difficult to approve or deny an application if that decision is in conflict with staff's recommendation. -31- COMMISSIONERS 4r A f1 �N F F� G9y9o�4y9C� � o _ FZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 21, 1988 R ALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman concurred. She stated that she would like to receive all of the pertinent information in the staff report without staff's final recommendation. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that an applicant may not be informed prior to the public hearing that the application could be denied, and that would not give the applicant an opportunity to contact staff to work out their problems. Chairman Person suggested that the foregoing motion Amend further state that the subject issue come back on the April 21, 1988 Planning Commission Agenda for review. Ayes The foregoing motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Noes ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business The Planning Commission directed staff to report duties, functions, and the review process of the Modification Re. Mod. Committee as a Discussion Item on the Planning Comm. Commission Agenda of February 4, 1988. The Planning Commission directed staff to place a Discussion Item on the Planning Commission Agenda of Re. Study February 4, 1988, in conjunction with possible study Session session dates and topics. :r ,r ADJOURNMENT:10:15 p.m. Adjourn - ment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -32-