Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/19970 • E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Selich and Ashley. Commissioner Gifford was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Minutes of February 6,1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley and voted on to approve, as written, the February 6th, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: Gifford Abstain: none Public Comments none Posfina of the Agenda: Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, February 14, 1997 outside of City Hall. INDEX Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Manning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 SUBJECT: Zurich Circle- Lido Isle Lot Line Adjustment John and Robin McMonigle, applicants 901, 905 and 909 Zurich Circle Appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee which approved the adjustment of interior lot lines between three parcels of land (existing Lots No. 432, 433 and 434 of Tract No. 907) for the development of single family dwellings on each. Ms. Temple summarized the staff report stating that this application involves the interior reconfiguration of lot lines between three existing legally subdivided lots on Lido Isle in the area of Zurich Circle. Staff believes that the approval of the lot line adjustments is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code and is in compliance with the required findings contained in the Code. The city's planning documents do not contain any divisions of the Lido Isle Subdivision beyond the original Tract 907 nor contain any reference to segments, portions or block configurations of Lido Isle. The comparisons of these building sites and relative size to the subdivision are based on the entire Subdivision 907 and not on any segment or portion thereof. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that any recorded development restrictions or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) on the property are not • under the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, the Commission is not restricted from approving these lot line adjustments because of those private development restrictions. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. John McMonigle of 835 Via Lido Soud, applicant, in response to Commission inquiry, stated that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of the Lot Line Adjustments 96 -12 and 96-13. He stated that he is of the opinion that the issue of the private deed restriction as raised in the letters of opposition, expired in 1975. Mary Lynn Coffee, attorney at Bryan Cave, LLP, 18881 Von Korman, Suite 1500, Irvine spoke on behalf of a group of homeowners who live around Zurich Circle and Via Zurich on Lido Island, the area referred to as Zone I and Zone M in the 1928 Declaration of CC and R's. She stated that the Modification Committee's approval of the lot line adjustments and the resulting development of three single family residences on the subject property should be overturned for the following reasons: • will result in an increase in the existing residential density of the property and will set a precedent for approval of increased densities for the property in its vicinity (referred to as Zones I and M in the Declaration of CC and R's) • will result in the creation of a lot that is both smaller than the lot size required by the Newport Beach City Code and the smallest lot in Zones I and M • the adverse impacts of the increased density resulting from an approval must • be addressed under CEQA INDEX Rem No. 1 LLA Nos. 96 -12 and 96 -13 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 • the increased density must be considered in the common scheme of development for Zones I and M. • increase in traffic and congestion • decrease in available parking in the area • limited access for emergency vehicles and other oversized vehicles • increase noise levels • reduce quality of life These arguments are related to density increases, not to enforcement of deed restrictions. Ms. Coffee then continued with arguments regarding the statute of limitations, covenant restrictions enforcement and right of reversion. Ms. Coffee stated that the issue for the Commission is the negative impacts that are expected to result. She then continued by presenting a history of declaration of CC and R's, and development on the Lido Island properties. Ms. Coffee continued her argument against the findings indicating that the: • General Plan notes that a further study needs to be done before density can be increased as allowed by Tract No. 907. • the CEQA exemptions applied would have two exceptions: there may be significant cumulative impact from this action, and unusual circumstances exist • • project site consists of legal parcels established by the original Lido Isle Subdivision, Tract No. 907 but not as modified by the CC and R's • no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment but not as modified by the CC and R's • density and zoning will not be increased, but looking at existing patterns of development and consideration of the CC and R's argued there will be increases • the proposed lot sizes would not be consistent when considering the CC and R's The residents believe these particular lot line adjustments with resulting development will be detrimental to their persons, property and improvements. Chairperson Adams stated that the owner of this parcel could build three separate dwelling units today as the day after a lot line adjustment, therefore, nearly all of the arguments become moot. Ms. Coffee disagreed noting that there are those residents who believe that if single family dwellings were built within the three lots as currently exist, there would be less negative impact on the neighborhood. There would be a better balance of setback, yard and open space. She noted that the zone restrictions in the CC & R's constitute a situation similar to a "B" plan or map. Commissioner .Ridgeway commented that this is a legal issue not before the Commission and their limitation is contained in 20.13.030 which has four criteria to be addressed. Ms. Coffee's arguments are best served to be heard in court, not in 40 front of the Commission. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 Chairperson Adams stated that one issue that might be considered is the relative size of the lots which will result from the lot line adjustment. Discussion continued on the lot line adjustment resulting or not resulting in the demolition of the current residence on the subject property. Ms. Coffee agreed that the action of the Modification Committee would not have any impact on a pending demolition from a technical standpoint. Further, density change over the existing three lots would not be impacted by moving the lot lines. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there are three parcels being discussed, could each of those lots having a house built on them? Ms. Temple indicated that the City does not enforce private agreements nor CC and R's. The existing block in question consists of three lots divided in the original subdivision Tract 907. If the house was tom down either an individual or three separate property owners could submit plans for a single family dwelling on each lot without any discretionary approval required. The action of the Modification Committee allowed for the reconfiguration of the lot with resulting changes to the buildable area for each of the separate lots. . Chairperson Adams stated that any comments the City might have with regard to the ability to build three separate structures would not be affected by this decision. He addressed action under CEQA as referred by Ms. Coffee to Ms. Clauson. Ms. Clauson stated she does not believe (for reasons stated in the staff report) this lot line adjustment falls within the exceptions noted by Ms. Coffee. The B Map concept is comprised of deed restrictions and CC and R's, not a filed map with the County Recorder. Ms. Temple then referred to handwritten page 32 of the staff report and answered Commission inquires relating to General Plan excerpt. She noted that the subdivision occurred in the 20's and the subsequent sale of the land did not always follow the established lot lines. The underlying subdivision is still intact, and because of that some growth could happen. To minimize that, by designating certain community association facilities as open space so that they could not be converted to residential. A study is suggested, however, that study has never occurred due to the lack of interest of the residents of Lido Isle or decision makers to move that study forward. Ms. Coffee stated for the record that findings need to be prepared when exceptions to the categorical exemption do not apply and she would like to see this list. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the Commission can not take into consideration the CC and R's and deed restrictions, asked to talk to the issue of property rights • issues. The homeowners represented are asking to deny the right to build on these INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 three Ms. Coffee answered that she disagrees with the comment that there are three lots that three houses could currently be built on. The General Plan recognizes that the declaration of CC and R's and the zones they create have placed restrictions in the way that the development can occur on Lido Isle. Chairperson Adams asked if it is believed that these three lots can't be built on separately, why care if the lot lines were adjusted? Ms. Coffee answered that is the action before the Commission today. Chairperson Adams commented that there is no connection between the adjustment of the lot lines and building three dwelling units on these parcels. Ms. Coffee answered that the connection is found in the Municipal Code 20.81.13 (3) that states lot line adjustments will not result in a change in density of development in order to grant a modification. Speaking in opposition to the lot line adjustments for concerns of: • • the narrowness of Zurich Circle being 20 feet wide and the potential danger of emergency vehicles entering with the potentially increased on- street parking, • traffic during the day on surrounding streets • amount of children under the age of 6 • two more garages on what used to be the front street from Via Lido Soud and will become an alley were: Jim Rogers, 129 Via Zurich Phillip Velesvinay, 124 Via Yella Ron DeCruz, 135 Via Zurich Marjorie Anderson, 916 Via Lido Soud Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Selich stated there are three legal lots now, density is not being increased, nor creating new lots if Commission upholds the Modification Committee's approval. From a land planning standpoint the lot line adjustment actually makes parcel 3 a better lot for development. He added that almost all of the other lots in the area are at least 40 feet wide, modifying the approval by taking the middle lot and making it 40 feet wide would create a reduction of parcel 3. Ms. Clauson stated that if the applicant agreed to this lot sizing, Commission could approve, uphold, modify or agree the action of the Modification Committee. This is the applicant's application and he would need to agree to the modification in the • lot sizes. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 Commissioner Selich added that with an additional five feet for design, the space could be used for the garage design to be situated so as to address one of the concerns previously stated during public hearing. The applicant, Mr. McMonigle, at Commission inquiry stated he would not be agreeable to changing the lot line size. Commissioner Fuller noted that in some of the correspondence of surrounding residents, it is noted that the right to revert to the original lot line has been lost. Is that correct? Ms. Clauson answered that the subdivision defines that a map has been filed for three legal lots. From the City's point of view, there are three legal lots that can not be taken away. If the CC and R's or some other private restrictions take that away, than it is up to them to enforce, but the City has no power to enforce it. It would be considered an invalid assumption, that those legally described lots are gone. Commissioner Ashley stated that he is not in favor of the proposed lot line adjustments. He agrees with Commission comments that a change in the lot lines does not affect the density of the development. If the applicant wishes to proceed to build three new buildings on his property that is an issue that he can address, not • this Commission. The reduction of Parcel 2 would create a situation that would be detrimental to the existing properties and improvements in the immediate area. What Commissioner Selich proposed, would have been acceptable. Chairperson Adams addressed the neighborhood concerns of traffic, safety and other issues but does not think these issues directly affect the decision the Commission needs to make. There are already three lots and moving the lot lines does not appreciably change that fact. The three houses that could be built with the existing lot lines does not create any more or less of a safety hazard if there were any more or less traffic than with the modified lot line. Staff has made findings of particular note, three separate structures could actually result in less mass and open air on this portion of the tract than a single building. One building on these combined lots would be one massive structure without any open space. Whereas, three separate lots with applied setbacks, the amount of building mass is reduced. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to disapprove NBLLA Nos. 96 -12 and 96- 13 as approved by the Modifications Committee. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to approve the decision on NBLLA Nos. 96 -12 and 96 -13 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A and addressing the CEQA concern. Ms. Temple proposed to amend, with Commissioner Ridgeway's assent, Finding No. 2 to read as follows: • That the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 • 0 California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) for the following reasons: • The project is a minor lot line adjustment which does not create any new parcel. • The project is in an area with on average slope less than 20%. • The project will not result in a change in land use or density since no additional lots will be created and the land use of single family residential use will be maintained. • The general exception to the Class exemptions is not applicable in this case since no significant environmental effects will result from this project because the traffic and parking impacts will not change from that which would result from use of the original subdivision. Substitute Motion was voted on and approved: Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Selich Noes: Ashley Absent: Gifford Abstain: None Findinas: That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan since the lots are for single - family development, a permitted use in this area. 2. That the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) for the following reasons: • The project is a minor lot line adjustment which does not create any new parcel. • The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20%. • The project will not result in a change in land use or density since no additional lots will be created and the land use of single family residential use will be maintained. • The general exception to the Class exemptions is not applicable in this case since no significant environmental effects will result from this project because the traffic and parking impacts will not change from that which would result from use of the original subdivision. 3. That the proposal will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the lot line adjustment as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 • The project site consists of legal parcels established by the original Lido Isle Subdivision, Tract No. 907. • That no additional parcelswill result from the lot line adjustment. • The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and /or facilities because public improvements and infrastructure are existing. • That an exception to the building site area requirement for the R -1 District is allowed because the lots or parcels of land were under one ownership and of record on August 2, 1943 and, for that reason, may be used as a building site even when of less area or width than required by the provisionsof the R -1 District per Section 20.13.030of the Zoning Code. • That the proposed lot widths and lot sizes are consistent with the surrounding area. 4. That based on the information of this particular case, the provisions of Title 19 of the Municipal Code (entitled Subdivisions) or the Subdivision Map Act, do not apply to the adjustment of lot lines between adjacent parcels of land and • are excepted from such provisions. Conditions: That prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. 2. That the lot line adjustment and grant deeds shall be filed concurrently with the County Recorderand County Assessor's Offices. 2. SUBJECT: Speedway Restaurant (Jerry King, applicant) 353 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3598 Establishmentof a theme restaurantfacility (race car theme) with incidental alcoholic beverage service. The application includes a request to: • allow an exception and a modification to the Sign Ordinance to allow the display of two formula one race cars on the roof and side of the building to act as an attention attracting device and to permit wall signs (racing graphics) in excess of the permitted 200 square feet allowed by the Sign Code; • • continue the waiver of specific restaurant development standards. INDEX item 2 UP No. 3598 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 Mr. Jay Garcia presented the staff report highlighting the waiver specifics. The waiver of specific development standards relate to the walls surrounding the restaurant, landscaping (10% requirement) and lighting, specifically parking lot illumination. Neighborhood compatibility is an issue raised by this use and in conjunction with previous uses which were problematic as to noise and police problems. Staff feels these issues will be mitigated as this proposed use will be a full service restaurant and no longer a bar, no live entertainment or dancing and conditions of approval have been provided limiting the hours of operation. Additional concerns were raised with sound amplification and noise generated by special events and the arcade equipment. Staff has suggested conditions requiring doors and windows be closed and also that noise be kept at a reasonable level. The staff report discusses the net public area determination. The arcade floor area has been included in the net public area calculations. Off - street parking is recommended 1 to 43 square feet of net public area. This does not include the outdoor dining which will be by separate permit. The applicant has proposed valet parking on a limited basis for special events that are to be limited in number, the hours of operation are recommended to be from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Staff has recommended the continued waiver of the wall standard surrounding the restaurant to aid visibility for police patrolling the area. The lighting in the parking lot will be addressed by condition to shield to prevent spillage. A request for exception is included to allow race cars on the roof and on the side of the building. A scale model is displayed showing the position of the race cars as well • as the proposed building facade element which is also a subject of exception. A landscape plan has been provided by the applicant. Ms. Temple then summarized the addendum staff report presented tonight which makes some modifications to existing conditions and recommends additional conditions. 1. an inconsistency with regards to outdoor noise and sound amplification - a modification to condition nos. 7 and 9 to make it clear that public address systems or amplifying equipment outside of the building may be used only in conjunction with a special event, and shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of the Community Noise Control Ordinance. 2. a concern that the stainless steel facade could or would be removed if the restaurant went out of business or otherwise ceased operation - an additional finding and condition are proposed: that the exception permit for the race cards and the building facade element is being granted for the express purpose of an automobile racing theme restaurant. The additional condition would read: that the roof top race cars and metal building facade element which are the subject of the exception permit portion of this application shall be removed if the race - oriented theme restaurant is closed or is converted to another restaurant or use. That a bond or surety shall be posted to assure the removal of the race cards and building facade element, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. In regards to landscaping, there is an expanded analysis on this issue. It is • recommended that Commission waive and amend the 12.75% required of the site INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 area devoted to circulation and parking. It is suggested that additional landscaping could be provided to offset the loss of landscaping on Coast Highway frontage and to soften the streetscape from Bayside Drive. The execution of the landscaping is far more important than the percentage of site area used for landscape. Ms. Temple then referred to page 2 of the Addendum suggesting an additional condition: 38. That within 30 days of the approval of this Use Permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan which provides landscaping which will soften the view of the parking lot from Bayside Drive, incorporates the maximum amount of vertical elements (trees and vines) feasible to provide visual relief, maximizes the amount of landscaping on the Coast Highway frontage, and provides a softening element to the westerly building elevation. The plan should incorporate the following features: • A landscape planter along Bayside Drive for all areas not devoted to driveway. • A landscape planter incorporating a combination shrubs and vines along the length of the wall on the easterly side property line (next to the auto dealer). • Landscape including at least one tree in the two comers on the westerly property line. • • A minimum of five feet of landscape planter in the area next to the sidewalk on the easterly property line. This could result in the loss of one parking space. • Planter areas with tree wells in the two "arms" of parking in the parking lot. Staff shall then schedule the landscape plan for staff review fora determination of consistency with the intent of this condition. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy the landscape plan and related irrigation system for the required landscape planter areas shall also be approved by the General Services Department and the Planning Department, and shall be completely installed in accordance with those plans. The landscaping and irrigation system shall be continuously maintained in accordance with the approve landscape plan. Commissioner Selich clarified that the exception for the sign is the size of the facade and not the size of the graphics. Ms. Temple explained that the facade is unique and is a simulation of a silhouette of a racing car and on that basis, staff believes that it is within staff's ability to determine that the facade itself functions as a sign and therefore the sign exception permit is required because the square footage exceeds the limitation of the code. Additionally, there has been a change in the location of the race cars on top of the roof. Ms. Temple then referred to the exhibit and pointed to the various changes as demonstrated on the roof elements. Chairperson Adams asked for information on the maximum size of the street address • that is not considered a sign. 10 JZIF]43 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 Staff answered there is no place within the Code that specifically addresses the size of a street number. However, on this representation, it is of the character and nature of numbers that are seen on the side of race cars. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Jerry King, as Speedway Restaurant representative, spoke in favor of this application. He stated the reference of the building facade as representative of the side of a race car was probably more apparent on the first design proposed. This is a different facade than the original building and it is the intent to update the older facade. This particular site was chosen because it was most properly placed between an auto dealership and auto service and is on the highway. The reason for the facade treatment on this particular side of the building was to distinguish it from the other buildings as it is auto racing oriented. The proposed facade is an approach to help draw attention to it as a destination hence the large address and the treatment of the facade on the building with the name. The cars on the building draw attention to this as a theme restaurant. Mr. King then spoke on the removal of live entertainment and dancing by his applicants after meeting with the Development Review Committee. As a result, all of the onerous operational characteristics associated with prior restaurants were • removed on a volunteer basis. The issue that the applicant has is the wall treatment facade and identification of the facade as a sign. The applicant is willing to work with the Commission and numerous changes have already been made at the recommendation of staff. As to the issue of the hours of operation, the applicant purchased the existing license that was at the restaurant which allowed an opening until 2:00 a.m. The applicant believes that after removing all of the onerous characteristicsof the previous restaurant and given the location in a commercial area closing at 2:00 a.m. should not be a difficulty. The applicant is opening a restaurant that is intended to be a family entertainment type restaurant without the problems of the past. Full food service will be available during the entire time the restaurant is open. The table games and arcade are an activity with the restaurant interior. Referencing the exhibit, Mr. King pointed out that there are quite a few large areas for display and merchandising and in addition it is anticipated there will be racing paraphernalia hanging on the walls and ceilings. The strong interest in Southern California in racing will be fully recognized in this location. The whole excitement of auto racing is being created. The problem of cueing cars off Coast Highway and on to the site has been addressed by the removal of the porte cochere on the older building entry. The area where automobiles would stop and disembark has been moved deeper into the property. Parking on the site for self parking during normal hours of business has been achieved with striping as defined by code. Valet parking is planned for special events. The landscape plan is continuously being worked on as the original site was barren. New creative ways to address landscaping without removal of parking spaces is evolving. Assuming this is approved, it would not prevent any remodeling but run concurrently as the applicant is hoping to have the remodeling done as quickly as possible. Once agreement with staff has been • reached regarding landscape, a new exhibit will be prepared and brought back for 11 INDEX 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 approval. The applicant has no problems with the other addendum issue of noise. Events such as the Long Beach Grand Prix, Carlsbad Motorcycle races and Los Vegas races are all within reach of the people who have expressed a willingness to come here as drivers and for the day will autograph items in the retail area, visit with the patrons and put on display either a car or motorcycle indicative of the race currently going on. The city has been made aware that with respect to the surety the applicant is willing to enter into any agreement. In answer to Commission inquiry, Mr. King stated that the applicant questions whether the skin represents a sign but does agree to all of the other revised findings and conditions of approval. He stated that they would like to retain the graphics as displayed on the exhibit. He clarified the hours of operation to be 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. to allow the flexibility to serve breakfast, lunch and dinner and continue the entertainment and interactive games and full restaurant operation to 2:00 a.m. daily, seven days a week as asked for in the original application. Mr. King affirmed that the exhibit represents to scale the specifics asked for including the racing stripe, name and address of the restaurant, cars and colors. Commissioner Selich asked about lighting on the cars or any animation. He was answered that the engines will be removed from the cars, any lighting will be close in . for highlighting but with no spillage beyond the roof area. Discussion followed on the hours of existing restaurants noting weekday and weekend. Mr. John Hirsch, architect of 8670 Washington Boulevard, Culver City - spoke while referencing the exhibit and maps elaborating on the site issues of: I . landscaping- augmentation with ground covering, vines and potted plants /trees 2. signage 3. display areas for artifacts and retail 4. elimination of bars 5. proposed metallic facade 6. addresssignage 7. heights of various elements 8. driveway entrance, drop off and parking areas Chairperson Adams postponed the meeting for five minutes to allow the Commissioners time to look at the exhibit close up and in detail. Mr. Nicholas Costa, Irvine Cove - one of the owners spoke on the operations. His intention for this building is an entertainment center for adults and a family oriented restaurant. He continued on the issues of: 1. skin of the building is non - reflective stainless steel blue 2. hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. on the weekend and holiday evenings - would • close Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesdayat 12:00 p.m. 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 3. removal of cars off the building 4. a bubble will be installed over the area of the arcade to prevent noise from coming out 5. the removal of two bars from current restaurant 6. this restaurant is a prototype 7. will hold charity events Sgt. Mike McDermott of Police Department Vice detail - stated that the applicant has been very responsive to police concerns and has eliminated most of the operational characteristics of the building, particularly elimination of live entertainment, dancing and a de- emphasis of alcohol service. Regarding the hours, he asked that they be staggered to either 1 or 1:30 a.m.. He asks for a six month review to be able to evaluate any problems. John Sappier, operations manager of the restaurant spoke on the issue of the hours. By staggering the hours Monday thru Wednesday, operationally it is not a problem. Being competitive with longer hours to 2:00 a.m. for the weekend and evenings prior to a holidaywould be helpful. Mr. John Honeycomb, 521 Avenida Campo, representing the Frank Marconi Foundation for Kids, spoke in favor of this application. He stated that several functions • with local car clubs are being planned in conjunction with the restaurant and friends of the museum. These functions have been very successful and looks forward to having similar results working with the owners of the Speedway Restaurant. Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Temple, at Commission inquiry, answered that she believes the facade itself is a graphic representation that relates to the specific operation and is one which would not be readily adaptable to other types of restaurants and as such is still concerned that the facade be removed if that particular operation would leave or change. Commissioner Fuller talked about the hours of operation. It was stated that this is a family restaurant including kids and that liquor is not a main concern. Is this consistent with the 1:30 a.m. closing time that is being considered? Chairperson Adams agreed and said that the operator has the right to stay open like his competitors. Commission should consider 1:30 a.m. for Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sundays before a holiday with the balance of evenings closing at 12:00 p.m. to be reviewed after six months. Ms. Temple stated she had drafted language that would address the hours of operation and proceeded to distribute copies. Commissioner Kranzley talked about the dollar amount for surety and asked if it would include costs for removal of facade and restoration of building if needed. Mrs. Wood • answered that there are some proposed language to condition 37 that would 13 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 address this. Ms. Temple then addressed the revised hours of operation as contained in condition 5. A revised condition 5 would read: 5. That the hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Sunday through Wednesday; and 6:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., Thursday through Saturday and on Sundays preceding a Monday holiday, with the exception of special events which shall be subject to the approval of a special event permit issued by the Revenue Division and approved by the Planning Department and the Police Department prior to issuance. 39. That this Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission within one year of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to determine if the hours of operation established for the facility should be maintained or altered, based upon the following: • There has been a significantor inordinate number of police service calls. • Documentation of the ratio of sales receipts, exclusive of retail sales, attributable to food service and the service of alcoholic beverages in the hours after 12:00 a.m. • If receipts for alcoholic beverage service exceed 507o for any segment of • time, a Use Permit for the establishmentof a barwill be required. Commissioner Kranzley clarified and it was confirmed that if this restaurant failed and a new applicant came in wanting to reinstitute dancing than the entire use would have to be reviewed by the Commission. Staff pointed out that Condition 35 allows the venue for review to add or modify conditions of approval or recommend revocation of this use to the City Council. CommissionerSelich talked about the family aspect of this operation, having a bar in a restaurant like this does not really make it a family restaurant. It might attract families earlier in the evening but later on it would clearly be an adult venue. He recommends that the hours of operation be to 2:00 a.m. as Commission does have the ability to review this use within six months. If there are problems, they can be dealt with. Appreciating the concerns of the Police, the extra half hour of operation would be beneficial to the applicant and Commission should not penalize them because they are coming in after other established businesses in the City. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that many theme restaurants are being established across the country involving copy rights and trade rights of the building. He does not see the facade as a sign. It is in keeping with creating the theme restaurant which is what the applicant is trying to do. This is a classic clean look with the 353 and is a very scaled down theme building. This is a tasteful and modern building. If the facade is removed, it may result in a less attractive situation. • Chairperson Adams stated that in Newport Beach there are a number of restaurants 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 that have not made it. The existing restaurant has been vacant for some time. Is the facade going to be considered an obstacle to a second user coming in from a monetary standpoint? It would be difficult to restore the building in removing the facade. The condition for a surety to address this may or may not be warranted. Commissioner Kranzley pointed out this would be a detriment to the owner of the building as well as to the City if the facade should go in disrepair. Staff clarified that the reason for the exception permit for the automobiles is the fact that they represent roof signs. Roof signs are a separate category from wall signs which is what the exception is for in terms of the car on the facade of the building. If a third car is approved, the location needs to be determined and conditioned. Following discussion by the architect, owner and Commission it was determined that there will be two cars on the roof as demonstrated on the exhibit, one over the canopy and one on the blue surface. Commissioner Kranzley stated that it appears that the issues of the facade and the bond for removal of the facade need to be redressed. Item no. 37 can be maintained by crossing out metal building facade. If the restaurant closes, they will want to take the cars with them. • Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway for approval of Use Permit 3598 subject to the findings and conditions as attached in Exhibit A with the addition of revised conditions of approval; nos. 5, 7, 9, 26 Finding 8 and additional conditions nos. 37, 38 and 39. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, , Selich and Ashley Noes. None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None Findings That the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail Service Commercial' uses and a restaurant is a permitted use within this designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. That the proposal involves no physical improvements which will conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. • 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 (surrounding the restaurant site), landscaping, lighting and signing (with the exception of the building covering and use of race cars which are addressed separately) meets the purpose or intent of the development standards they as apply to restaurants and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application, for the following reasons: • The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. • Walls in full compliance with the standards would adversely impact visibilityand site securityfrom a Police Department standpoint. The some purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the property to control noise can be achieved by the limitation on the hours of operation and requirements for closed doors and windows to prevent potential noise problems. • The extensive remodeling proposed constitutes a significant change which warrants an increase in the landscape area to achieve greater conformance with the development standards; and the addition of landscaping at the rear of the property behind the building would enhance the streetscape as viewed from Bayside Drive • That full compliance with the landscape requirement would result in a • reduction in the available on -site parking. • There have not been any past complaints related to lighting; and the Code requirement's intent or purpose can be achieved by the redirection of existing light sources mounted on the subject building. The parking lot illumination will be improved by an upgrading of the existing lighting at the rear of the property which will enhance the light spillage afforded by the Bayside Drive street lights 5. That the granting of that portion of the exception permit request to allow the use of two race cars will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code, and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • That the approval of the race cars is consistent with the intent of the sign ordinance to provide adequate means for identification and advertisementof the restaurant establishment and the use of the race cars is no more obtrusive than the use of permitted wall or pole signs. Further that the placement of two race cars on the roof is more aesthetically compatible than its placementon a pole. • That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involved with the subject property from the curvature of Coast Highway and the traveling speed of westbound traffic which provide only a limited opportunity for visibility since the restaurant is located between the automobile dealership and the automobile service station. 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 That the use of the race cars for immediate recognition offset, the highway speed and curvature of Coast Highway which limit visibility to westbound traffic and are only minor visual enhancements to complement the restaurant signage. Also that the automobile sales facility and automobile service station do not suffer from the same visibility limitation given their location. That signage adequate to identify a commercial location could be considered a necessary property right and is satisfied by the use of the race cars in this particular case, which create a unique identity for the proposed restaurant establishment and which does not enhance any detrimental affect. That the race cars for the most part are obscured from view by the building and are only visible from Coast Highway traffic and therefore are not anticipated to create or contribute to an unsafe traffic hazard as a distraction to motorists and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the traveling public. 6. That the granting of that portion of the exception permit request for the building facade element which serves as an attention attracting device is not contrary to the purpose or intent of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code, and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general . welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The approval of the building facade element is consistent with the intent of the sign ordinance to provide adequate means for identification and advertisement of the restaurant establishmentwhich is accomplished by the proposed facade element which is complementary to the theme of the restaurant facility and enhances and transmits that theme to the exterior of the building. Further, that the building facade element is no less aesthetically compatible with the surrounding properties than other identification signs permitted by Ordinance. • That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involved with the subject property which have been identified by the applicant that due to the curvature of Coast Highway and the traveling speed of westbound traffic only a limited opportunity for visibility is afforded to the site which is not typical of most commercial locations on Coast Highway. Also that the restaurant's location between the automobile dealership and the automobile service station also contribute to hamper and diminish the visibility. That the use of the building facade element will increase visibility and offset the physical constraints of the property created by its location on the curve of Coast Highway. • That the building facade element represents signage adequate to identify the commercial location which is a necessary property right • which should be protected in this particular case. The building facade 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 element is only a visual enhancement which complements the restaurant signage and theme. That the proposed building facade element is a building accent much the same as architectural features and a minor visual distraction which will not create a traffic hazard to westbound Coast Highway traffic and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the traveling public. Also that the building facade as viewed from the highway and the neighboring automobile related commercial properties is visually and aesthetically compatible with those uses and not abruptly out of scale. The approval of Use Permit No. 3598 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental 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, for the following reasons: • The proposed parking is adequate to accommodate the proposed restaurant facility. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being provided by the restriping of the parking lot and no problems or complaints are • anticipated. • The proposal will not add a new liquor license to an overconcentrated area, providing only for the re- establishmentof an existing business. • The establishmentis to be operated as a full service restaurant and not as a bar which should result in a reduction in the number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control problems experienced in the past. • The restaurant use will be compatiblewith the surrounding commercial and residential uses and is anticipated to reduce the potential problems by the elimination of live entertainment and dancing coupled with a reduction in the hours of operation that eliminate the late night closing hour. 8. That the exception permit for the race cars and the building facade element is being granted for the express purpose of an automobile racing theme restaurant. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That a minimum of one parking space for each 43 sq.ft. of "net public area" (4,734 sq.ft with 110 spaces) shall be provided on -site. A physical barrier or partition with a minimum height of 42 inches, with design acceptable to the is Planning Department, shall be utilized to physically separate the display areas 18 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 (and the use of display cases) from the net public area. 3. That food service from the full lunch /dinner menu shall be available at all times the facility is open. 4. That there shall be no outside promotions or promoters. Only pre - recorded music shall be allowed that is operated by a paid employee of the restaurant facility. 5. That the hours of operation shall be 6:00 a.m. and 12:00, midnight, Sunday through Wednesday; and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Thursday through Saturday, holidays and evenings preceding a holiday with the exception of special events which shall be subject to the approval of a special event permit issued by the Revenue Division and approved by the Planning Department and the Police Department prior to issuance. 6. That the approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose being the sale or service of food and beverages with sale and service of alcoholic beverages incidental to the food use. Further, that any event which is contemplated not to operate with the sale or service of food and beverages as the principal purpose (e.g., cocktail reception or mixer), shall be subject to the approval of a special event permit issued by the Revenue Division and approved by the Police Department. Said special event permit shall be completed and submitted to the Revenue Division at least 30 days prior to the date of the event (unless other arrangements are made with the City Departments), to allow adequate time for the Police Department and other City Departments to review the application and to impose additional conditions of approval. That special event permits for activities located outside of the building, within the parking lot, shall be limited to no more than 6 events per calendar year and shall be subject to the approval of a special event permit issued by the Revenue Division and approved by the Police Department. Public address systems or sound amplifying equipment outside of the building may be used only in conjunction with a special event, and shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of the Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code). 8. That live entertainment and dancing shall be prohibited unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. That this approval shall not be construed as permission to allow concerts or a theater /nightclub use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 9. That any activities, such as the display of motorcars or other apparatus, • outside of the confines of the building shall not generate any noise which 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 2D, 1997 may disturb neighboring residential uses (i.e., revving of automobile engines or other apparatus). 10. That the noise generated by the establishment, including the use of amplified music and sound amplification of video games, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than 55 dBA at any property line. That the applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the proposed use to insure compliance with these conditions, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director. 11. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code, with the exception of the race cars, graphics and building facade element addressed separately by this approval. That no more than three race cars shall be mounted or otherwise attached to the exterior walls of the building or on or above the roof of the building. 12. That the previous existing signs, including the freestanding marquee type sign, shall be removed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. • 13. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking lot striping shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and City of Newport Beach Standard Drawings, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 14. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 15. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. That the on- site parking spaces be set back a minimum of 20 feet from street entrances unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 16. That Handicap Parking Spaces shall be provided and marked as required by Code. 17. That all employees shall park on -site. 18. That a valet parking plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval prior to the implementation of the valet parking service. 19. That the intersection of the private drive at East Coast Highway be maintained so that any new facade covering or projection will not diminish the current sight distance provided. Landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance 0 requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 the City Traffic Engineer. 20. That the existing 15 foot wide storm drain easement be shown on all site plans and grading plans, and that no structural improvements be constructed over the storm drain easement unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 21. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the East Coast Highway or Bayside Drive right -of- way. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a parking plan for workers must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 22. That the outdoor dining area shall be subject to the approval of an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit issued by the Planning Department, prior to implementation. • 23. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 24. That all doors and windows shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of the premises, except in case of emergency. 25. That the area outside of the food establishment, including the public sidewalks or walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. That the operator of the food service use shall be responsiblefor the clean -up of all on- site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use. 26. That the project shall be designed to minimize light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system including the lighting of the race cars has been evaluated and the light sources redirected or shielded, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 27. That storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container • enclosure. 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 28. That all trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 29. That the trash dumpsters or receptacles shall be maintained so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 30. That no outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this facility, with the exception of public address systems utilized in conjunction with special events permits. 31. That no temporary "sandwich "signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the establishment. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. • 32. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code and approved by the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 33. That the project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 34. That a covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided and the area drains directly into the sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunctionwith the approval of an alternative drainage plan. 35. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 36. 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. 37. That the roof top race cars which are the subject of the exception permit • portion of this application shall be removed if the race - oriented theme 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 restaurant is closed or is converted to another restaurant or use. 38. That within 30 days of the approval of this Use Permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan which provides landscaping which will soften the view of the parking lot from Bayside Drive, incorporates the maximum amount of vertical elements (trees and vines) feasible to provide visual relief, maximizes the amount of landscaping on the Coast Highway frontage, and provides a softening element to the westerly building elevation. The plan should incorporate the following features: • A landscape planter along Bayside Drive for all areas not devoted to driveway. • A landscape planter incorporating a combination shrubs and vines along the length of the wall on the easterly side property line (next to the auto dealer). • Landscape including at least one tree in the two corners on the westerly property line. • A minimum of five feet of landscape planter in the area next to the sidewalk on the easterly property line. This could result in the loss of one parking space. • Planter areas with tree wells in the two "arms" of parking in the parking lot. . 39. That this Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission within six (6) months of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to determine if the hours of operation established for the facility should be maintained or altered, based upon the following: 40. There has been a significant or inordinate number of police service calls. Documentation of the ratio of sales receipts, exclusive of retail sales, attributable to food service and the service of alcoholic beverages in the hours after 12:00 a.m. If receipts for alcoholic beverage service exceeds 50%, a Use Permit for the establishment of a bar will be required There has been a significant or inordinate number of complaints regarding noise and activity which adversely affect nearby residential areas. 3. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 97 -1 City of Newport Beach Request to initiate an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan for areas within the City's Sphere -of- Influence, as follows: • Amend the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements to incorporate changes to the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program as approved by the County of Orange and the California Coastal • Commission; 23 INDEX Item No. 3 GPA 97 -1 Recommended to CC for Initiation • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 Amend the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements to add the land use and development criteria for the Newport Ridge planning area. Ms. Temple reported this is the City's three times a year initiation of General Plan Amendments. This is a necessary pre -step in the possible annexation of these areas to the City of Newport Beach. At commission inquiry, staff clarified that the existing Land Use Plan for the Newport Coast area is a reconstruction of the LCP documents of the County of Orange. It is staff's intention to similarly change it based on the recent amendments and the addition of Newport Ridge. Public Hearing was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to the City Council that the proposed General Plan Amendment 97 -1 be initiated. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams,, Selich and Ashley Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None • ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Mrs. Wood reported on the meeting of the 20th, Council continued their consideration of the recommendations of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee and began to take some action with regards to Council's highest priorities: separated out the Marinapark issue, directed staff to proceed immediately to develop a Peninsula revitalization financing program and a community outreach program; develop parking management plan to make changes to Balboa Pier parking lot; amendments to the Local Coastal Program and certification of that Program; develop a tenant marketing plan as part of a tenant recruitment plan; continue to develop policies for regulating alcohol related businesses and to develop a derelict boat ordinance. If financing is approved for these items, they will begin this fiscal year. Next fiscal year if Council approves funding, a feasibility study for the "mixmaster;' changes to Via Lido and 32nd Street and beginning changes to the Sign Ordinance will occur. Mr. Jim Sinasek, Senior Code Supervisor was awarded the Employee of the Year award. The new fees were approved on the 2nd reading: the Zoning Code update was continued to March loth and the World Oil appeal was heard. Public Works concluded that there were some site distance problems with the monument signs and recommended that the sign would have to be a pole • sign. Council limited the height to 13'6" and added a condition that it be 24 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1997 amortized at such time there would be a change to the Sign Code and additional landscaping was also required by Council. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals - Modifications were approved for 400 and 400 '/1 Heliotrope Avenue, 412 and 414 Poinsettia Avenue. Disapproved was a Modification for 109 301h Street. Approved also was a Resubdivision for 414 Poinsettia Avenue and a Lot Line Adjustmentfor 1525SantonellaTerrace. b -1.) Temporary Use: Ted Thacker, Thacker Berry Farms, located at 2400 East Coast Highway (Corner of East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue, a vacant lot, aka Corona del Mar Plaza site). Planning Director's recommendation to approve a temporary use of a strawberry stand for a period not to exceed 90 days from February 21, 1997 to May 21, 1997. Planning Commission sustained recommendation by oral affirmation. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- none. • d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - none. • e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g.) Requests for excused absences- none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m. ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION PAI INDEX