Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1991COMMISSIONERS .o o,, �n �pyd �rn� i REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: March 7, 1991 CITY OF INDEX NEWPORT * * * * BEACH * * MINUTES R6Er CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Edwards arrived at 7:40 p.m.) EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary • Minutes of February 21. 1991: Minutes of 2 -21 -91 Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the February 21, Ayes * * k k 1991, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent e : r Public Comments. Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comments on- agenda items. ?osting of the Agenda: Posting of the am es Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda ommission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 1, 1991, in front A City Hall. • COMMISSIONERS ,� o � �� �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES Rdff CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 2, Continuance. Resubdivision No. 953, Hyter Properties, applicant, property located at 417 Orchid Avenue, and Item No. 9, Use Permit No. 3086 (Amended), John Dominic Restaurant, applicant, and Use Permit No. 3409, Larry Levoff, applicant, property located at 2901 West Coast Highway, be continued to the April 4, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion was made to continue Items No. 2 and No. 9 to the April Ayes * * * 4, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Absent : s s Resubdivision No. 952 (Public Hearing) item No.l Request to resubdivide a portion of an existing lot into a single R952 parcel of land for a 22 unit residential condominium project on Approved property located in the MFR (22 DU) District where a 22 unit • community apartment project now exists. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 1396, located at 1003 Dover Drive, on the northwesterly comer of Dover Drive and Westcliff Drive, in Westcliff. ONE: MFR (22) APPLICANT: Westcliff Villas Homeowners Association, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant NGINEER: Duca- McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Peter Wessel, Chairman of the Westcliff Villas Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wessel explained that if the community apartment project would s-2- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX be converted to condominiums, the property would increase in value, and it would allow an owner to use the condominium as collateral for a loan. Mr. Wessel stated that on February 25, 1991, 20 property owners voted to change the status from community apartments to residential condominiums and 2 property owners opposed the proposal. Mr. Wessel concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 952 Ayes * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION Absent CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through • or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded and that said parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. 2. That all vehicular access rights to Dover Drive be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. • -3- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL. INDEX 3. That a curb access ramp be constructed at the intersection of Dover Drive and Westcliff Drive and at the intersection of Westcliff Drive and Buckingham Lane; that the driveway approaches be reconstructed on Buckingham Lane; and that the spalled curb at the existing parkway drain on Buckingham Lane be reconstructed. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 4. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Resubdivision No. 953 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide one lot and a portion of a second lot into 8953 a single parcel of land for two unit residential condominium Cont ' a to • purposes on property located in the R -2 District. 4_4_91 LOCATION: Lot 9 and a portion of Lot 7, Block 441, Corona del Mar, located at 417 Orchid Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Orchid Avenue, between East Coast Highway and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Hyter Properties, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Laguna Hills James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant requested that this item be continued to the April 4, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONERS OA �d �•� � �OJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R Or CALL INDEX Motion was made and voted on to continue Resubdivision No. 953 Motion to the April 4, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Ayes Absent * * * * * CARRIED. x x x Resubdivision No. 954 (Public Hearing) item No.3 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land 8954 for two unit residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-2 District. - Approved LOCATION: Lot 14, Block 37, River Section, located at 3713 West Balboa Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of West Balboa Boulevard, between 37th Street and 38th Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Lloyd Myles Development, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Duca - McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public Baring was closed at this time. Motion * otion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 954, Ayes ubject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Inasmuch as Absent io one appeared on behalf of the applicant, it was determined that he findings and conditions would be a contractual agreement etween the applicant and the City. MOTION CARRIED. • 5 COMMISSIONERS Ailh cW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7,199' MINUTES R CALL Or INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. • Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the broken sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the West Balboa Boulevard frontage under an COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991 MINUTES ROM CALL INDEX encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the applicant notify prospective buyers that access to the garage does not meet City standards, making garage access difficult. 9. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 10. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Resubdivision No. 95 (Public H Item No.4 Request to resubdivide one lot and portions of two other lots into 8955 o parcels of land for single family residential purposes on Approved property located in the R -1 District. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of the roposed parcels which are less than 50 feet wide and less than ,000 square feet in area. CATION: Lot 897 and portions of Lots 896 and 898, Tract No. 907, located at 229 and 231 Via Lido Soud, on the southwesterly side of Via Lido Soud, across from Via Cordova on Lido Island. ONE: R -1 COMMISSIONERS O r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES RMILWCALL INDEX APPLICANT: Russ Fluter, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Duca - McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Russ Fluter, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 955 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "X. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: • 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or. speck plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint so long as the existing structure on the site is removed prior to the recordation of the parcel map. t. That there are special circumstances affecting the property since the new parcels to be created will be no smaller than parcels established by the original subdivision of the area. 5. That the proposed parcels are similar in size to other parcels in the same block of the subject property. -8- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT March 7, 1991 MINUTES BEACH R CALL INDEX 6. That the granting of the requested exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 7. That if the exceptions were denied, the petitioner would be deprived of a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the area. 8. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to the completion of the public improvements. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated sections of the rolled curb be reconstructed and any unused drive depressions be removed and replaced with rolled curb along the Via Lido Soud COMMISSIONERS Am 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES RO=CALL 11 till I INDEX frontage, and that a sidewalk be constructed in the public utility easement behind the curb, under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That a condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay side of the property be made by a civil or structural engineer, and that the bulkhead be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building and Marine Departments. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). 7. That the parcel map shall be revised to show the correct street name of Via Lido Soud. 8. 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. 9. That park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code prior to recordation of the parcel map. 10. That prior to recordation of the parcel map, all structures on the subject property shall be removed. 11. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. x s s s -10- COMMISSIONERS 0"0 boo. o, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX Establishment of Grade (Discussion) Item No.5 Request to establish grade for the purpose of measuring building Establish height in accordance with Section 20.87.200 of the Municipal Code Grade for an existing developed site on property located in the 24/28 Foot Approved Height Limitation District. LOCATION: Lot 26, Tract No. 673, located at 222 Poppy Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Poppy Avenue, between Seaview Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Weston Whitfield Architects, Laguna Beach OWNER: Joseph D. Phillips, Carmichael amen Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the City Council as taken action to recommend a change in the procedure to process Establishment of Grade requests; however, he said that on e basis the Ordinance has not become effective, the subject request has been processed similar to previous Establishment of Grade proposals as a discussion item. Mr. Hewicker addressed revious similar requests located on Poppy Avenue that have been pproved by the Planning Commission. �lr. Larry Dodd, 254 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning ommission wherein he objected to the method that grade is easured from the property line. Mr. Dodd submitted photographs f structures that have recently been developed on Hazel Drive. He ddressed his concerns regarding the height of the dwellings and he impact the structures have on the surrounding neighborhood. r. Hewicker addressed the Establishment of Grade request ocated at 216 Poppy Avenue that was approved by the Planning mmission on February 7, 1991, wherein he explained that a hotograph was presented to the staff and Planning Commission epicting Hazel Drive prior to development of the area indicating e existing grade and terracing of the properties. Mr. Hewicker -I1- COMMISSIONERS 0 �� L Ask CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991 MINUTES ROT CALL INDEX explained the existing Zoning Code requirements, and be explained that the subject request considers the original grade of the property as it existed when the site was developed. Mr. Hewicker stated that structures currently exist on Hazel Drive when the approved height limit was 35 feet. Motion * Motion was made to approve Establishment of Grade on property Ayes * located at 222 Poppy Avenue subject to the findings and conditions Noes * in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Edwards did not support the motion on the basis of findings that the existing finished grade is inappropriate. The foregoing motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. in in : 1. That the proposed natural grade of the subject property has been substantially altered in conjunction with the existing on -site development and that the existing finished grade • adjacent to Hazel Drive, is inappropriate and unworkable for the measurement of building height associated with the proposed project. 2. That the use of the proposed grade across the full buildable width of the site is more reasonable and workable inasmuch as said grade will result in a uniform building envelope across the full width of the property, and will allow future development which is consistent with a majority of the other properties along the northwesterly side of Hazel Drive. That the use of the proposed natural grade for the purpose of measuring building height is, in this case, consistent with the intent of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code and with similar approvals on the same side of this block. 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 proposed development. • -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7,199' MINUTES ROL"r CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, elevations partial elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That the future development of the subject property shall be in conformance with the provisions of the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District as measured from the proposed natural grade shown on the approved plans. Said proposed natural grade line shall be applied across the full buildable width of the site and shall be plotted so as to be perpendicular to the side property lines of the subject property- 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building or demolition permit prior to completion of the public • improvements. That the sidewalk and drive apron improvements be reconstructed to City Standards along the Hazel Drive frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. O • -13- COMMISSIONERS .d � d,0 O d Y [n PO �N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX Variance No. 1173 (Public Hearine? Item No.6 V1173 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling which exceeds the allowable 2 times the buildable area of the site Approved on property located in the R -2 and R -3 Districts. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow portions of the building to encroach 8 feet into the required 8 foot front yard setback adjacent to the bay. In addition to the front yard encroachments, said construction proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of East Bay Avenue so as to encroach an additional 2 feet 10 inches on the ground floor and 5 feet 3 inches on the second floor. LOCATION: Lot 13, Block 15, East Side Addition, Balboa Tract, and a portion of abandoned East Bay Avenue, located at 1024 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of East Balboa Boulevard and "C" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. . ZONES: R -2 and R -3 PLICANTS: Timm and Margaret Crull, San Marino OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the staff report herein he requested that the reference to encroach an additional feet 10 inches beyond the original lot line should be corrected to tate to 2 feet 10 inches on the ground floor. Mr. Hewicker stated at Exhibit "C" limits the size of the building to 2 times the uildable area of the property and allows a 2 foot 10 inch ncroachment beyond the former right -of -way line along East Bay Venue which would be consistent with the three dwellings that were constructed to the west of the subject property. He indicated at there are no other structures on the block that were nstructed greater than 2 times the buildable area, and he uggested that no portion of the building, with the exception of ermitted eaves, etc. be allowed to come out further than 2 feet 10 ches beyond the original lot line. • -14- COMMISSIONERS � d Po i � Ah CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES RO CALL INDEX Commissioner Pers6n addressed Exhibit "C' (Findings and Conditions of Approval for Variance No. 1173 [Denies the variance to exceed allowable gross floor area and limits setback encroachments adjacent to bay]) wherein he suggested that the heading of said exhibit be modified to state "Findings for Denial of The Variance and Findings and Conditions of Approval for the Modification." William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, concurred with the suggestion and he pointed out that Finding No. 1 in Exhibit "C' states that on the basis there are no exceptional circumstances to exceed the allowable gross floor area, a modification and not a variance would be required, if the structure would be built beyond the property line. Chairman Debay determined said Exhibit would allow the 2 foot 10 inch encroachment beyond the original lot line but it would not allow over 2 times buildable area of the lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the reference in the staff report that the Building Code and the Zoning Code differ in the floor area calculation, Mr. Laycock explained that the Building Code does not include the • vertical bead clearance of less than 5 feet. He said the.Zoning Code indicates that the area adds to the bulk and is considered in the square footage. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ron Yeo, architect for the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Yeo stated that a variance was required ased on the location of the property line and the setback, and he escribed the proposal from a colored exhibit that he brought to he Planning Commission meeting. He pointed out the front and ear property lines; the differences between the existing building d the proposed structure; the third floor area; the second level ck that is proposed to extend to the existing bay window on the st floor which will be eliminated; that a roof overhang would F ovide weather protection; the average roof height of the third floor that mostly consists of a skylight at the rear of the structure 24 feet; and a side yard fence that would be high enough to keep he public off of the property. He submitted photographs of the xi sting structure wherein he commented that the proposed tructure would enhance the property. Mr. Yeo concluded that the -15- COMMISSIONERS o '9d d 3� Am 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES RdLr CALL INDEX applicants would remodel the present structure rather than lose substantial square footage as Exhibit "C" in the staff report would require. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding the square footage that would be lost if Exhibit "C" would be approved, Mr. Yeo replied that approximately 400 square feet would be eliminated from the structure if the project would be developed in accordance with said exhibit. Mr. Walter K. Thompson, 1100 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to his letter of opposition attached to the staff report. Mr. Thompson did not oppose the proposed square footage, and he said the applicants should be allowed a higher fence than three feet along the side property line adjacent to the bay so as to provide privacy to the property owners. He did not oppose the 2 foot 10 inch encroachment beyond the original lot line inasmuch as it would not be fair for the structure to set back from the adjacent houses to the west. However, Mr. Thompson objected to the second floor balcony • construction beyond the 2 foot 10 inch encroachment inasmuch as it would have a view impact on his property. He stated that a building permit was not pulled for the bay window encroachment on the first floor of the existing structure by a former property owner. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Thompson discussed the design of he proposed second floor balcony and overhang as they obstruct e view from his property. Mr. Hewicker explained that staff b.ects to the portion of the second floor balcony that encroaches eyond the structure and the 2 foot 10 inch line. Mr. Hewicker 'urther explained that a 2 foot 6 inch overhang over the first floor .s allowed according to the Zoning Code. In response to a uestion posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the deck of e balcony, Mr. Laycock explained that the railing would have to e moved back on the deck so as not to encroach beyond 2 feet 10 nches from the original lot line, but an overhang would be allowed. r. Thompson stated that he would not object to the modification. •-16- COMMISSIONERS A �W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991 MI N UT ES ROLor CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Thompson replied that the existing first and second floor window projections were not approved by the City. Mr. Yeo reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicants would agree to modify the balcony at the Planning Commission's request. He stated that the bay windows had been built when the applicants purchased the property. Mr. Yeo agreed with Exhibits "A" and "B" as proposed by staff. Mr. Hewicker addressed the roof of the proposed structure, and he said that staff would not have a problem calculating the height of the roof if a lower portion of the roof would be removed so as to reduce the bulk of the building. Mr. Hewicker addressed the height of the existing hedge at the street end and the front yard of the subject lot wherein he explained that the street end is a public street where the public can observe the bay and a high hedge or fence would cut off the public view. Mr. Hewicker suggested that if the Planning Commission approved a high fence that the fence not be a detriment to the public. Mr. Yeo agreed to a condition • that the fence would be designed similar to the other fences in the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay with respect to staffs foregoing concerns, Mr. L.aycock explained that Exhibit "B" would apply with a modification to Condition of Approval No. 5 to the permitted height of the. fence or a hedge. Mr. Hewicker indicated that he would not object to a 4 foot high fence providing an individual could stand on the pavement and see over the fence. Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Yeo, and Mr. Hewicker discussed the eight of the fence, and the use of wrought iron or similar open material to construct the fence. Mr. Thompson reappeared before the Planning Commission herein he addressed the public's easy access to the property by stepping off of the seawall, and he suggested that the height of the fence be constructed so as to provide security for the property, There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. • -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX Motion . Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1173 subject to the findings in Exhibit "D". Commissioner Pers6n stated that in order to approve a variance, the Planning Commission must make three findings. He referred to Finding No. 1, 'That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land.. ", and Finding No. 2, "the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights..:'. In reference to Finding No. 1, he said that the subject property is not different from other properties in the area, and in reference to Finding No. 2, he said the substantial property rights is the difference between permitting 3,000 square feet or 3,500 square feet of gross structural area on the property. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission has a duty to be very 'stingy' in the granting of variances. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Variance No. 1173, subject Motion * to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit 'B ". Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the City's regulations are • difficult to apply to the small and complex lots that were developed ears ago, and when an applicant wishes to create a nicer and newer structure than the existing structure, and is in fact, smaller overall, the Planning Commission should encourage the development. He said the building bulk regulations are inappropriate when applied to very small lots in the City, that wilding bulk regulations should allow larger buildings on smaller lots and smaller buildings on larger lots similar to other cities 'thin the State to solve the problem. He said that it is appropriate and the findings for the variance are appropriate. Commissioner Glover addressed Condition No. 5 in Exhibit "B" regarding the removal of the hedge row, and the 3 foot height limit The maker of the motion suggested that the Modifications ommittee be given the opportunity to review the site and make he decision on the height of a fence or a hedge that exceeds a eight of 3 feet. Commissioner Glover supported the substitute notion on the basis that the proposed structure would chitecturally be more interesting; that the structure would consist A less bulk than the dwelling that currently exists; and the -1& COMMISSIONERS �0 �G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX neighbors' concerns would also be addressed. Commissioner Di Sano stated that the existing structure is old; the proposed project would reduce the bulk; the proposed structure would enhance the neighborhood; and the Modifications Committee could review the request for the height of the fence. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that Exhibit 'S" would allow the 'brow of the overhang and not a railing. Mr. Laycock further replied that the neighbors' concerns would also be addressed if Exhibit 'S" would be approved. Commissioner Person stated that the foregoing Findings No. 1 and No. 2 as he previously indicated, are required under the law to make or grant a variance. He further stated that the threat of an applicant to remodel an old building is not an adequate basis to grant a variance. Substitute motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1173 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "W (approves Ayes * * * variance to exceed allowable gross floor area and limits setback Noes * * encroachments adjacent to bay). MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this . application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District inasmuch as the subject property is 1,290 square feet larger than a majority of the lots in the remainder of the block. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicants, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk of the existing three similarly developed lots located northwesterly of the subject property. . -19- COMMISSIONERS A& � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES ROE CALL INDEX 3. That although the proposed project exceeds the allowable gross floor area, it has been designed so as to provide more than the required open space within the buildable area of the site. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood and further that the proposed modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the building and deck encroachments of 2 feet - 10 inches± beyond the original lot line adjacent to East Bay Avenue (Line B), is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • ONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the gross floor area of the proposed structure shall not exceed 3,516± square feet including third floor living areas with less than 5 foot vertical clearance. 3. That a roll -up type garage door shall be used to enclose the parking spaces. That the building and deck encroachments shall be limited to 2 feet - 10 inches± beyond the original lot line adjacent to East Bay Avenue (Line B shown on the approved site plan) 5. That the existing hedge row planted along the southeasterly property line, within the vacated portion of East Bay • -20- COMMISSIONERS \'4\AM £ T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINU.TES ROL CALL INDEX Avenue, shall be removed or lowered so as to not exceed a height of 3 feet measured from the existing residential grade and that any new landscaping shall conform to the same 3 foot height limit in accordance with Section 20.02.070 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the approval of building permits. 7. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Use Permit No. 3411 (Public Hearinel Item No.7 Request to permit the establishment of a permanent automobile UP3411 washing and detailing facility in existing parking structures for the Approved on -site tenants of existing office buildings located on property in the C -O -H District. CATION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 25 -14, (Resubdivision No. 271), located at 620 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly side of Newport Center Drive, between Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: Team Precision, Torrance OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • -21- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX The public bearing was opened in connection with this item, and Messrs. Paul Ashcraft, Clay Lilly, and Don Strable, applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission. James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested the applicants to explain the water circulation system that will be utilized. Mr. Ashcraft explained that the water that is used once, is a high pressure system that uses approximately 1 -1/2 gallons of water per automobile, and then goes through a clarifier system that cleans the water before it enters the sewer system. The applicants concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". The applicants addressed Condition No. lb in Exhibit "A" with respect to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Ashcraft explained the signs would be posted within the interior of the structure. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Lilly explained the term "reclaimed" water or clarifier, and how the clean water enters the sewer system. Mr. Ashcraft referred to Condition No. it with respect to the "water reclamation device or grease ' terceptor ", and he indicated that the applicants intend to use a • "grease interceptor" and not a "water reclamation device ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3411, subject to the Ayes * * * * findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" Noes Commissioner Glover stated she would not support the motion on e basis that the water issue needs to be addressed. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed application is not an intensification of the existing use, and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. COMMISSIONERS d d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. That adequate parking exists on -site to serve the auto washing and detailing facility and the existing uses. 4. That the establishment of the subject business will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3411 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: . 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and section, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site access to the car wash shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the establishment of the subject business. Also, the proposed facility may not encroach or otherwise utilize any portion of the adjacent vehicular aisle. That the applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Building Department, waterproofing protection to the structural integrity of the parking structure, in and around the washing facility, to aid in the prevention of water damage resulting from the moisture associated with the proposed facility. Particular attention should be taken in relation to any existing cracks in the existing concrete. That the operation shall be limited to the washing, detailing and waxing of automobiles, and shall be conducted within COMMISSIONERS � o O�cn O� - Cnp .po � etc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES RCZr CALL INDEX the area designated on the approved plot plan. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from view of any public or private streets and from adjoining properties. 6. That the storage of tires and other auto related parts or merchandise shall be prohibited on -site. 7. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 8. That the proposed automobile washing and detailing facility shall be limited to employees of the immediate office complex. A sign shall be posted adjacent to the facility to inform the public of said restrictions. 9. That the proposed facility area be protected by a minimum 3 inch curb or berm surrounding the area on all sides not protected by a wall. Any existing drains which occur in the • proposed facility shall be sealed or otherwise capped. 10. That the proposed water reclamation system (grease interceptor) shall be connected to the sewer system. The design and installation of the above facilities shall be approved by the Utilities Department. 11. That the applicant shall maintain the water reclamation device or grease interceptor in efficient operating condition by periodic removal of the accumulated oil, grease and grease solids. The applicant is also. responsible for the proper removal and disposal by appropriate means of the captured material. No such accumulated grease or grease solids shall be introduced into any sewer, lateral public sewer, or otherwise into the storm drain or water system. 12. That the applicant shall maintain accurate records of water reclamation device or grease interceptor device cleaning, maintenance, and grease removal and report such cleaning, maintenance, and removal to the City Utilities Department. • -24- COMMISSIONERS .0 v+ d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX 13. That the applicant shall allow City representatives ready access at all reasonable times to all parts of the premises for purposes of sampling and inspections. 14. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., daily. 15. That no temporary "sandwich" signs or other similar signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the detailing facility. 16. That all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and shall not be placed other than on the property involved. No sign shall be displayed so as to be seen from the public street. 17. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 18. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 19. 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. • -25- COMMISSIONERS , d� fi0 '4\ AM 'P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX A. Traffic Study No. 71 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the establishment TS71 of a McDonald's Take -Out Restaurant facility on property located in the SP -6 District UP3401 AND Denied B. Use Permit No. 3401 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a McDonald's Take -Out Restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area, and the acceptance of an environmental document. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 2 - 20, Block 127, Lake Tract, and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, . comprising the entire block bounded by 28th Street, Newport Boulevard (southbound), 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Newport Peninsula Center Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed concerns that staff had regarding the subject application. He said that the location of e on -site parking is an area where customers of the restaurant y not park. He said that immediately adjoining the restaurant ere is the City Municipal Parking Lot, and said lot would be more convenient and would be used more by the customers than he proposed on -site parking area. Mr. Hewicker said that 12 -26- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX parking spaces would be provided on the subject property for the restaurant use where the Municipal Code requires 86 parking spaces; 16 employees are proposed during the peak summer months; and the applicants have requested to waive 86 percent of the required off- street parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker addressed staffs concern regarding the pedestrian traffic and the heavy automobile traffic between the beach and 26th Street on West Balboa Boulevard. He stated that based on the concerns for the pedestrians, the Public Works Department has requested that the sidewalk along the 26th Street frontage of the site be widened. He said that the only way the sidewalk can be widened would be to realign 26th Street and Parking Lot on the southerly side of 26th Street, and take additional right -of -way off of the landscaped strip in the Municipal Parking Lot on the southerly side of 26th Street. Mr. Hewicker addressed staffs concern regarding the applicants' intentions to keep the trash picked up in the surrounding area and on -site. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff also has a concern that the applicants have requested that the restaurant be open past 10:00 p.m. He said that the Police Department has written a report regarding problems with teenagers on the Balboa Peninsula after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the quality of life for the residents in the immediate vicinity be considered. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hewicker replied that the restaurant is not proposing a drive -thru operation. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. David Baade, 1151 Dove Street, Attorney representing the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "X. Mr. Baade addressed the Traffic Study that was prepared for the proposed take -out restaurant wherein he stated that the findings of the consultant were that the proposed project would have a -27- COMMISSIONERS \4\ A& CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MI N U T ES RCTrCALL INDEX minimal impact on traffic and the parking on -site would be adequate based on an analysis of similar operations. He indicated that the parking requirements were not met according to the Zoning Code; however, the traffic study indicates that the parking available on -site is sufficient for the anticipated use. Mr. Baade addressed the concerns regarding the hours of operation wherein he stated that the applicant owns the shopping center where the proposed take -out restaurant would be located, and he said that security is provided for all of the tenants on the property. He pointed out that franchise -owned restaurants operate strict facilities as opposed to company -owned facilities. Mr. Baade requested that the hours of operation be until 12:00 midnight during the week and 2:00 a.m. on weekends with a condition that the hours be reviewed within one year. Mr. Baade addressed the concern regarding trash wherein he explained that McDonald's Take -Out Restaurants police one square block around the facility. He explained that the applicants • would install trash bins off of the premises, if necessary. Mr. Baade addressed the request to widen the sidewalk wherein he described the portion of the sidewalk that could be widened without widening 26th Street. He requested that the condition be modified to extend only to the area of the sidewalk adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard and 26th Street. Chairman Debay addressed her concerns regarding the location of the on -site parking spaces, and the peak traffic hours on the Balboa Peninsula. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Traffic Study indicates the peak hour at various traffic signals. He said that most of the signals on the Balboa Peninsula deal with beach traffic, and the Traffic Study did not differentiate winter from summer traffic. Mr. Baade discussed off -site parking of existing take -out restaurants. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, John Lardas, owner of the McDonald's Take -Out Restaurant located on West Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lardas replied that there is an excess amount of parking spaces at -28- COMMISSIONERS o � 0 0� A �\ do X14' .� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX said restaurant since the drive -thru operation opened, and prior to the drive -thru operation, he said the parking spaces would be full only during the noon hour. Mr. Hewicker explained that the City required the McDonald's Restaurant located on West Coast Highway to provide parking spaces for square footage that was originally proposed and never built. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Lardas stated that the volume of business at the proposed restaurant is expected to be less than the West Coast Highway facility, that there would be more walk -up traffic at the subject site, and not as many parking spaces would be required. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the difference in volume between the two take- out restaurants, Mr. Lardas stated that a 25 percent reduction of business is anticipated at the subject operation as opposed to the take -out restaurant on West Coast Highway. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Rhonda Hunt -Del Bene, Real Estate representative for McDonald's Restaurant in Orange County, appeared before the • Planning Commission. Ms. Hunt -Del Bene explained that the first floor of the restaurant consists of approximately 2,700 square feet, and a dry storage area on the second floor consists of approximately 427 square feet. She said the applicants are considering moving the upstairs storage area to the first floor whereby 20 seats would be eliminated on the first floor of the restaurant and the number of required parking spaces would be reduced. Ms. Hunt -Del Bene further explained that the take -out restaurant cannot be reduced much smaller than 2,700 square feet to 2,900 square feet. Mr. Hewicker explained that the outdoor dining area was included in the gross square footage of 3,486 square feet. In response to concerns expressed by Chairman Debay and Commissioner Pers6n regarding a modification to the original proposal, Ms. Hunt -Del Bene explained that the applicants could eliminate 427 square feet if the Planning Commission requested less square footage. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker explained that if 427 square feet would be eliminated, the parking requirement would be -29- COMMISSIONERS O!^ 1ptP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX reduced by 9 parking spaces, or by 10 percent of the parking requirement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Lardas and Ms. Hunt -Del Bene replied that the take -out restaurant on West Coast Highway has 5 cash registers and the proposed facility would have 7 cash registers; that the preferred area for the delivery truck to park would be on Newport Boulevard in the early morning; and the restrooms located in the common areas are equipped for the handicapped. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n with respect to modifying the closing hour to 10:00 p.m. every night, Ms. Hunt -Del Bene explained that there would be a considerable loss in volume if the take -out restaurant closed at 10:00 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Lardas explained that the restaurant's peak hour is between 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m., and the busiest day is Saturday. Mr. Lardas stated that from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight the restaurant would • be the busiest during the summer months. Mr. Baade reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he indicated that the typical McDonald's employee either rides a bicycle or the bus to work. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Baade explained that the proposed facility was discussed with the Central Newport Beach Community Association and he referred to the letter dated February 27, 1991, stating their opposition to the take- out restaurant. Chairman Debay referred to the letter from the Balboa Peninsula Point Association dated March 6, 1991, stating their opposition to the operation. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Stephen Cloobeck, property owner, 60 Cove Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Cloobeck replied that he personally polices the shopping center to be certain that the tenants are complying with the required hours of operation. Mr. Cloobeck further replied that • -30- COMMISSIONERS Am c�POt �.� � y� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX the permitted operating hours for Grillo's Restaurant are from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. during the week. Mr. Hewicker stated that Grillo's Restaurant is in violation of the use permit inasmuch as customers were served at tables in the restaurant facility during the noon hour on this date. Mrs. Carol Clark, 203 - 28th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and she expressed her opposition to the subject operation. She addressed the heavy traffic, the full Municipal Parking Lot during the summer months; and the litter from the take -out restaurants that are located in the area. In response to questions posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Webb explained that the property owner may operate the on -site parking lot in any manner they desire, and could restrict the on -site parking lot to customers only. Mr. Webb further replied that staff has a concern regarding where the take -out restaurant's employees would park during the summer months. Mr. Richard Babineau, 123 - 27th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated his opposition to the proposed take -out restaurant. He addressed the impact of traffic, trash, noise, parking, and pollution that exists in the area. Mr. Babineau delivered a petition signed by the adjacent neighbors stating opposition to the proposed operation. He stated that a gardener uses a leaf blower at 6:30 am. to clean the subject property. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Babineau stated that drivers turn down 27th Street and drive through the alley to 28th Street to avoid the traffic congestion on the Balboa Peninsula. Mr. Duane Bandy, 201- 28th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that the quality of life has deteriorated in his neighborhood and the residents do not want the neighborhood to decay more than what currently exists. Mr. Tom Hyans, President of Central Newport Beach Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to the Community Association's aforementioned letter. Mr. Hyans addressed the meeting that the Association's Board of Directors held in April, 1990, wherein the applicant's representative • -31- COMMISSIONERS o �o I � off^ in � Mh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES RCLr CALL INDEX presented a general concept for the redevelopment of the subject property contingent upon the Wells Fargo Bank leaving the site. He indicated that the Board of Directors was in favor of the proposed redevelopment with the exception of the proposed take- out restaurant or a facsimile. Mr. Hyans addressed his disapproval of the Traffic Study; that the relocation of 26th Street is incomprehensible; that the proposed parking is inadequate; and the location of the outdoor eating area. Mr. Douglas Boyd, President of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to the Association's aforementioned letter. He stated his concern regarding the use of the 26th Street Municipal Parking Lot inasmuch as the demand for parking would exceed what the parking lot can handle. Mr. Babineau reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that parking spaces are rented during the summer months at the shopping center parking lot. • Mr. Baade reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he requested that one should not assume that McDonald's Restaurant will not pick up the trash, and that there would be loitering around the take -out restaurant. Mr. Baade stated that the Traffic Study determined that the traffic impact from the proposed project is minimal, and there would be sufficient parking on -site based upon the consultant's analysis. In conclusion, Mr. Baade requested that the proposed project be looked at on its own merits and not be looked at as a negative factor because other restaurants or facilities in the City do not take care of their own problems. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Commissioner Pers6n made a motion to deny Traffic Study No. 71 and Use Permit No. 3401 subject to the findings in Exhibit "B "., He stated that he had difficulty with the project on its own merits,' and the decision has nothing to do with other take -out restaurants in the neighborhood. He stated that the take -out restaurant would not work at the proposed location because of the pedestrian traffic on • -32- COMMISSIONERS QOM Ah CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES ROL CALL INQEX 26th Street throughout the summer, and there would be an impact on traffic in the area. He suggested a finding in Exhibit "B" stating that the proposed project would create an unacceptable amount of pedestrian traffic in the area during the summer months. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the proposed hours of operation would create a serious policing problem on the Balboa Peninsula and he expressed a concern that self - policing may not be adequate. He concluded that he was surprised that McDonald!s Restaurant requested a facility at the subject location. Commissioner Di Sano reluctantly supported the motion. He addressed the restaurants that currently exist on the Balboa Peninsula without use permits, and be indicated that those are the facilities that are a primary concern of the property owners. He stated that he approves of restaurants that may be regulated by conditions of use permits, and the restaurants that do not have rules of operation prohibit restaurants from coming into the area that could be controlled by the City. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the City has tried to encourage pedestrian traffic because it is non - vehicular traffic, and he said it is difficult to add a finding that there would be an unacceptable level of pedestrian traffic. Chairman Debay stated that the maker of the motion addressed the safety of the pedestrians crossing West Balboa Boulevard because of the traffic layout. Commissioner Pers6n suggested a finding concerning the problem with pedestrian safety inasmuch as there is no traffic light at the intersection. Commissioner Merrill concurred that pedestrian safety is a concern. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the traffic congestion on the Balboa Peninsula, and he said the restaurant during the peak traffic hours would not create additional traffic because there is no place for the traffic to go. He said that McDonald's Restaurant maintains its facility and trash, and it is not.appropriate to compare it with other restaurants that do not maintain their facilities. He supported the motion on the basis there are enough public serving facilities in the area, and the public objects to an additional take- out restaurant operation. Commissioner Glover supported the motion. She stated that the West Coast Highway facility has been managed well; however, she • -33- COMMISSIONERS Am 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES RO= CALL INDEX said there is not enough space for an additional restaurant in the area. Chairman Debay addressed the location and intensity proposed for the restaurant. She commented that the subject proposal does not fit the typical McDonald's Restaurant franchise. Motion was voted on to deny Traffic Study No. 71 and Use Permit No. 3401 subject to the findings in Exhibit 'B", including an additional finding regarding pedestrian safety. MOTION All Ayes CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1. No action is necessary for the previously certified environmental document. 2. Make the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. 4. The Findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the denial of the Traffic Study No. 71 and Use Permit No. 3401. -34- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX B. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 71 1. Take no action on the Traffic Study; and 2. Make the finding listed below: Finding: 1. That Traffic Studies are not needed for projects that are denied. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3401 1. Deny Use Permit No. 3401 with the findings listed below. Findings: 1. That the proposed take -out restaurant represents a land use of greater intensity than that which is presently existing on the property. 2. That the proposed take -out restaurant will require a greater amount of off - street parking than is currently provided on the subject property, and that said facility is located in an area that has a demonstrated lack of available on- street parking. 3. That the placement of a high intensity take -out restaurant use in a portion of the site, which is so removed from available on -site parking, will result in an unworkable site plan that creates an unacceptable and confusing on -site circulation pattern. 4. That the location and proximity of the proposed take -out restaurant to nearby residential uses will result in an unacceptable increase in the level of late night noise and traffic experienced by nearby residential areas. • -35- COMMISSIONERS p0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1997MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3401 will,. under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. 6. That the proposed project would create an unacceptable amount of pedestrian traffic in the area during summer months, and pedestrian safety needs to be considered. In response to questions posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Webb explained that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not consider the Balboa Peninsula cruising problem, the late hour traffic numbers, or traffic leaving the beach. Chairman Debay and Commissioner Edwards suggested that a special traffic study be inaugurated to address the issue of summer and winter traffic on the Balboa Peninsula. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is set up to analyze peak hour traffic and intersections throughout the City. : s : A. Use Permit No. 3086 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearin) Item No.9 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3086A permitted the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic UP3409 beverages, live entertainment and dancing, valet parking and off- site parking for employees on property located in the "Recreational Cont ' d to and Marine Commercial' area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan 4 -4 -91 Area. The off -site parking area is located at the southeasterly comer of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. The proposed amendment involves a request to operate the second floor portion of the subject restaurant as a separate use from the third floor restaurant operation. Said proposal also includes a request to operate the second floor restaurant at lunch on Monday through Friday, whereas the second floor portion of the existing restaurant is currently limited between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 2:00 am. • -36- COMMISSIONERS oAi� � O�'p � �O� `Pow ,�� .� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX Monday through Friday and 9:00 am. to 2:00 a.m. Sundays and recognized holidays. Said proposal also includes a request to allow the required daytime parking for the second floor restaurant to be provided on a contingency basis depending on the amount of vacant office or retail space within the building. APPLICANT: John Dominus Restaurant, Newport Beach AND B. Use Permit No. 3409 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment and dancing, valet parking and off -site parking for employees on property located in the "Recreational and Marine Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. The off -site parking area is located at the southeasterly comer of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. Said proposal involves separating the exacting third floor portion of the John Dominis Restaurant so as to operate the third floor as an • independent restaurant use with the same operational characteristics that are currently permitted. LOCATION: Site of restaurants: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 84- 709 (Resubdivision No. 779), located at 2901 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Riverside Avenue and Newport Boulevard in Mariner's Mile. Site of Off -site parking: Lots 7,8, and 9, Tract No. 1133, located at the southeasterly comer of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Larry Levoff, Know Limit Inc., Carlsbad OWNER: Kawabe, USA, Beverly Hills • -37- COMMISSIONERS Am 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R&TCALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that these items be continued to the April 4, 1991, Planning Commission meeting so as to allow the applicants additional time to provide a redesign of the proposed restaurants and to settle a lease agreement dispute between the applicants. Staff also requires the additional time to review those changes and incorporate that information into the staff report. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3086 Ayes k * (Amended) and Use Permit No. 3409 to the April 4,1991, Planning Absent * Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Discussion Items: Discussion Item 1 Review of Planning Department Workload and Proposed A eg nda for Joint Meeting with Qb Council on March 25. 1991. cc1pc JOINT MTG • The Planning Commission and staff briefly discussed the list of projects that staff submitted for the Planning Commission's review. Amendment No. 731 Item 2 Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach A731 Municipal Code so as to delete aRecific required r -PH from the calculation of moss floor area for a duplex in the R -2 District. on 4/4/91 Motion Motion was made and voted on to set this matter for public All Ayes earing at the April 4, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. • -38- COMMISSIONERS 01 �v CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 7, 1991MINUTES R CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: add l l Business Commissioner Di Sano discussed a brochure from the City of Santa Monica related to drought resistant plants with the Planning Drought Commission. - Resistant Plants x x x ADJOURNMENT. 10:12 p.m. Adjournment x x x THOMAS EDWARDS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -39-