Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/1990COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: April 5, 1990 CITY * * OF * NEWPORT All Commissioners were present. (Chairman Pomeroy arrived at BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * All Commissioners were present. (Chairman Pomeroy 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 Sandra L. Genis, Senior Planner Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary isMinutes of March 8 1990: Minutes of 3 -8 -90 Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the March 8, Ayes * 1990, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Abstain Public Comments: Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comments non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 30, 1990, in front of City Hall. COMMISSIONERS CALL April 5, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH James Hewicker, Planning Director, recommended that Item No. 5, Planning Commission Review No. 12, Martha and Jim Beauchamp, applicants, property located at 2719 Shell Street, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 1990, inasmuch as the applicants have not submitted requested plans to review the chimneys. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Planning Ayes * * * * * * Commission Review No. 12 to the April 19, 1990, Planning Absent Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. a s s Resubdivision No. 922 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for two family residential condominium development on property . located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 15, Block 429, Corona del Mar, located at 439 Begonia Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Begonia Avenue, between First Avenue and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: R. Wayne Brown, Jr., Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Developers' Engineers, Orange The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Wayne Brown, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he 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. -2- INOEX Request for Continu Item No.1 R922 Approved COMMISSIONERS A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. Ayes * * * 922, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements 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 map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. . 4. 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 the occupancy, and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit 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. 4. That the displaced portion of sidewalk be reconstructed along the Begonia Avenue frontage. That all work be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. -3- COMMISSIONERS N & �0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 8. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 9. 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. s s s Resubdivision No. 923 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land x923 for two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 334, Corona del Mar, located at 410 Goldenrod Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Goldenrod Avenue, between First Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Crall and Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: C.K.M. Partners, Newport Beach . ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Laguna Hills -4- COMMISSIONERS M1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item Inasmuch as no one appeared before the Planning Commission to testify on the agenda item, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. Ayes. * 923 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent * MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements 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 map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems . from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy, and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit 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. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the occupancy of the project. 5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the . adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. -5- COMMISSIONERS CALL • Motion 0 April 5, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 6. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 1950 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 8. 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. Exception Permit No. 36 (Discussion,) item No.3 Request to permit the retention of four as -built wall signs which EP No. 36 have been installed on the existing Wells Fargo Bank Building and which exceed the allowable number of wall signs for a multi- Approved tenant building. 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, 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Jack's Surfboards, Newport Beach OWNER: Steve Cloobeck, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the addendum to the staff report reflects additional findings to Exhibit "B" in support of signs "A' and "B ", and rewording of Finding No. 4, Exhibit "C". Inasmuch as the applicant was not available, a motion was made „ and voted on to remove this item to the end of the Planning Commission agenda. MOTION CARRIED. IM COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I f i l l I ( INDEX Exception Permit No. 37 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the retention of an existing as -built sign which represents the second ground sign on property located in the M- 1-A District, where only one ground sign per building site is permitted. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the as -built signs to encroach up to 13 feet 8 inches ± into the required 15 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: Lot 46, Tract No. 3201, located at 4023 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and Quail Street, across Birch Street from the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: M -1 -A • 11111111 APPLICANT: George Souleles, Laguna Niguel OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff was not able to locate building permits for the two signs that would address the Public Works Department's concerns regarding the location of the signs. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the City Council is interested in upgrading the general vicinity where the subject property is located. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. George Souleles, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Souleles explained that a permit was not granted for the Pack -Cell Corporation sign, and the second sign has been located on the property for 12 years. Mr. Souleles indicated that the Pack -Cell sign is located approximately 18 feet from the edge of the driveway where the automobiles stop before entering Birch Street; that the signs on the other sites surrounding the subject property are not conducive to the area and are considerably larger than the subject signs; and the subject signs are aesthetically pleasing to the area. • I I I I I I I I In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Souleles concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibits AandB. -7- Item No.4 EP No. 37 Approved COMMISSIONERS \�\ O �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Pomeroy requested a clarification of the requirement requesting 18 feet from the Pack -Cell sign to the edge of the driveway. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, explained that the Public Works Department has adopted standards that require clear sight distances at intersections and driveways 10 feet back of the right -of -way. He expressed concern for pedestrian safety as the automobiles approach Birch Street because of the close proximity of the sign to the driveway. Mr. Souleles agreed to move the signs back; however, be opposed moving the signs 10 feet from back of sidewalk. Mr. Souleles indicated that between MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street there are 22 signs on other lots that are at the edge of the sidewalk whereas the subject signs are set back at least 5 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Edmonston determined that the plan indicates that the existing signs are approximately 16 inches from back of sidewalk, and the sign that is 4'6" wide could be moved towards the building into the 15 foot front yard setback so as to provide at least a 10 foot clearance. Mr. Edmonston did not object if the 6'6" Pack -Cell sign was moved 8'6" from back of sidewalk. Mr. Souleles agreed to move the Pack -Cell sign adjacent to the • building so as to provide as much clearance as possible. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hewicker discussed the procedure that the Code Enforcement Officers follow to locate illegal signs and to bring the signs into compliance with the Zoning Code. Mr. Souleles explained that the subject signs became an issue when Pack -Cell requested approval of Use Permit No. 3374 so as to establish a facility that specializes in automobile cellular phones. Mr. Souleles addressed the deterioration of Birch Street and Campus Drive based on the number of illegal signs in the area. Mr. Shiram Vosough, owner of Pack -Cell, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he addressed the sign height requirements, and the necessity for the sign. Mr. Edmonston explained that to maintain a view corridor, the maximum height limit of signs is 24 inches, and occasionally a height of 30 inches has been approved within the sight distance areas. Chairman Pomeroy suggested a condition that would require the signs to be moved back or lowered to a maximum height of 30 inches. Mr. Hewicker referred to Condition No. 3 in Exhibit "A" • that requires the ground signs to be relocated so as to maintain at least 10 feet between the signs and back of sidewalk. He -8- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX suggested that the condition could be amended to maintain a front yard setback of 8'6" for the Pack -Cell sign instead of 10 feet or to lower the height of the sign to 30 inches. Mr. Vosough stated that automobiles parking in the space on Birch Street in front of the building has caused accidents inasmuch as a driver's sight distance is blocked when coming out of the driveway. Mr. Edmonton stated that if the property owner would submit a letter regarding the parking space, the City would paint the curb red so that the parking space would be eliminated. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. 37 subject to the findings and condition in Exhibit "A ", and to amend Condition No. 3 stating "Tbat the two ground sign shall either be relocated on the site or lowered so that the signs do not exceed a height of 30 inches. If relocated, the Pack -Cell sign shall be set back at least 8 feet 6 inches from back of sidewalk, and the second ground sign shall be set back at least 10 feet from back of sidewalk." Commissioner Glover and Mr. Edmonton discussed requirements for consistent sight distance for all signs throughout the City. Motion was voted on to approve Exception Permit No. 37 subject All Ayes to the findings and condition in Exhibit "A", including amended Condition No. 3 as suggested by Mr. Hewicker. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed sign are compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the existing signs will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the existing signs are consistent with the character and design of the existing structures on the subject • property. -9- COMMISSIONERS CALL • • April 5, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. That the granting of this exception permit 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. 5. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to allow two ground signs to encroach into the required 15 foot front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, provided adequate sight distance is maintained. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans and elevations except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the existing signs. 3. That the two ground signs shall either be relocated on the site or lowered so that the signs do not exceed a height of 30 inches. If relocated, the Pack -Cell sign shall be set back at least 8 feet 6 inches from back of sidewalk, and the second ground sign shall be set back at least 10 feet from back of sidewalk. -10- INDEX COMMISSIONERS CALL April 5, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Plannine Commission Review No. 12 (Discussion Request to review 3 chimneys which exceed the 24 foot basic height limit in the R -1 District and which exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. LOCATION: Lots 5 and 17, Block C -33, Corona del Mar, located at 2719 Shell Street, on the southwesterly side of Shell Street between Fernleaf Avenue and Way Lane in China Cove. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Martha and Jim Beauchamp, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that this item be • continued to the April 19, 1990, Planning Commission meeting inasmuch as the applicants have not submitted the requested chimney plans. Notion Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the Ayes * * * * April 19, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent CARRIED. :7 Site Plan Review No. 56 P{ ublic Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 3,484 square foot office building on property located in the C -1 District in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area, where a specific plan has not yet been adopted. LOCATION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 89 -390 (Resubdivision No. 911), located at 480 North Newport Boulevard, on the southeasterly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Bolsa Avenue, in the North Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area. -11- INDEX Item No.5 PCR No.12 Cont'd to 4 -19 -90 Item No.6 SPR No.56 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o�'° so 0 0� M ��� �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Allan J. Carlton Jr., Paramount OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that an inasmuch as an attempt was made to increase the setback areas so as to increase the landscaping, the applicant has agreed to set the first floor of the building back three feet on Bolsa Avenue, and five feet on Newport Boulevard. He explained that the second floor and roof would remain as proposed on the plan. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. William Coleman, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant wherein he concurred with the findings • and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the modification to the setbacks as suggested by Mr. Hewicker. 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 approve Site Plan Review No. All Ayes 56 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 2 stating 'That a minimum 5 foot building setback shall be provided on the first floor along North Newport Boulevard and a minimum 3 foot building setback shall be provided on the first floor on Bolsa Avenue. The second floor and roof shall be permitted to remain as proposed. Said setback areas shall be fully landscaped." MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 2. That the development is compatible.with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and . -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES O�� O'9 �`9 ��a� �� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. April 5,1990 ROLL CALL I I Jill I INDEX harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 3. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on -site which should be protected. 4. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 5. The development is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. 6. That there are no archeological or historical resources on- site. • 7. That the proposed development has been designed so as to prevent any adverse effect on the adjoining residential property. 8. 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. 9. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 10. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 11. Adequate off - street parldng and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. • -13- COMMISSIONERS d ,p O�� a W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That a minimum 5 foot building setback shall be provided on the first floor along North Newport Boulevard and a m;nrmum 3 foot building setback shall be provided on the first floor on Bolsa Avenue. The second floor and roof shall be permitted to remain as proposed. Said setback areas shall be fully landscaped. 3. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review • by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That all applicable conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 911 shall be fulfilled. 6. That the Edison transformer and any trash collection areas shall be fully screened from Bolsa Avenue, North Newport Boulevard and adjoining properties, and shall be located so as to provide required sight distance. 7. That all employees within the proposed development shall park on -site. 8. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress to the site. 9. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be • approved by the Public Works, Planning, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments. The landscaping -14- COMMISSIONERS 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX shall be installed in accordance with the prepared plans prior to occupancy of the development, and shall. be continuously maintained. 10. That the lighting system for the proposed project shall be designed in a manner so as to conceal the light source and minimize light and glare to the adjoining residential properties to the east. The lighting plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 11. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on • the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 12. That the applicant shall construct a 6 foot high block wall along the easterly property line adjacent to the "R" classified property. The height of said wall shall be measured from the adjoining residential grade. 13. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.60.060 H of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. s s s • _15_ COMMISSIONERS MINUTES NN April 5, 1990 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Modification No 3654 neal)(Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to consider the appeal of the Modification Committee's Mod 3654 approval of Modification No. 3654 permitting the construction of a second floor enclosed garage structure on top of the existing Approved Bay Island Club parking structure which encroaches 4 feet into the required 4 foot front yard setback adjacent to West Bay Avenue. LOCATION: Lots 2 -6, Block 3, East Newport Tract, located at 501 West Bay Avenue, on the southwesterly comer of West Bay Avenue and Island Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Bay Island Club, Balboa OWNER: Same as applicant APPELLANTS: James M. Harvey, et al, Balboa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bill Ficker, architect, appeared before the PI nnin Commission on behalf of the applicant wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Ficker described an exhibit of the proposed project. Mr. Jim Harvey, 504 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission whereby he stated that when the parking structure was constructed 25 years ago there was a reference in the application to a 7 foot encroachment into the 10 foot alley setback, and the use will be specifically a parking structure. Mr. Harvey said that the parking structure is currently being used as a garbage storage area on Sundays and Mondays; that a tented storage area has been installed on top of the parking structure; the neighbors oppose the proposed sheet metal structure on top of an existing 150 foot commercial parking structure in a residential neighborhood; and the parking structure is not making • a contribution to the area. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Harvey replied that the residents -16- COMMISSIONERS 1 �u m ,� ��, �"� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX primarily object to the sheet metal and the roof. Mr. Iry Winesuff, 502 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he objected to the proposed 4 foot front yard encroachment inasmuch as it would allow the parking structure coverage to be in front of the building, and he opposed the sheet metal material. Mr. Winesuff referred to Section 20.10.050 of the Municipal Code that states that no parking is allowed on the roof of any structure in a residential zone. Mr. Hewicker explained that inasmuch as the structure was permitted many years ago, it is a legal, non - conforming use, and at the time the parking structure was approved, property was zoned for commercial uses. Mr. Winesuff maintained that the existing use should be required to comply with the current standards. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the . public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker explained that the portion of the proposed structure that will encroach into the front yard setback area adjacent to West Bay Avenue is a pitched roof that will not be much higher than the existing parapet wall. Notion * Motion was made to approve Modification No. 3654 subject to Ayes * * * * * the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Di Noes * Sano supported the Modifications Committee's findings that allowed the encroachment. Commissioner Edwards did not support the motion on the basis that he could not make the findings in Exhibit "A ", and that the residents opposing the request indicated that the encroachment would have a substantial affect on the adjoining properties. Motion was voted on to approve Modification No. 3654 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W'. MOTION CARRIED. • -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Findines: 1. That the proposal will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the proposed garage enclosure will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use. 3. That the proposed garage enclosure will not affect the flow of air and light to adjoining residential properties, inasmuch as the structure is located adjacent to a public street, and will maintain a setback of 25± feet from the • adjoining residential uses to the west. 4. That the proposed garage enclosure will not adversely obstruct views from adjoining residential properties any more than a permitted structure. 5. That the proposed front yard setback encroachment .is minor in nature. 6. That the revised plan is a reasonable alternative to the original submittal which reduces the canyon or tunnel effect of the structure as viewed from West Bay Avenue. 7. That the garage enclosure will shield parked vehicles from view of adjoining residential properties across West Bay Avenue. 8. That the bulk of the structure will be less obtrusive than a building constructed to the R -3 District development standards. 9. That the permitted encroachment in the 4 foot front yard setback will be no higher than the existing parapet wall adjacent to West Bay Avenue, except for a slightly pitched • roof required for drainage purposes. Therefore, the intent -18- COMMISSIONERS 1 :1fNIKa_1» 40 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 of the 4 foot front yard setback for all new construction will be substantially maintained. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections. 2. That the portion of the enclosure located within the 4 foot front yard setback adjacent to West Bay Avenue shall be reduced in height so as not to exceed the height required to accommodate the front end of a vehicle and also provide adequate roof drainage as required by the Uniform Building Code. 3. That the overall height of the structure shall not exceed 18 feet above natural grade as depicted in the revised plans presented at the hearing and made a part of this application. 4. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 854 shall be fulfilled. Use Permit No 3263 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of a take -out restaurant with incidental seating to be operated in conjunction with an existing retail wholesale coffee business on the ground floor and a residential unit on the second floor of a building located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand the "net public area" of the restaurant use by adding a patio dining area and expanding the interior dining area. The kitchen area is also proposed to be expanded. The proposal also includes: a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces for the restaurant; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces for a portion of the proposed -19- MINUTES INDEX Item No.8 UP3263A Approved COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES R O L L CALL 1 1 I f i l l I I INDEX parking; and a modification to allow a portion of the proposed parking to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lots 18 and 19, Block 430, Lancaster's Addition, located at 506 31st Street, on the southerly side of 31st Street, between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue, in Cannery Village. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Alta Coffee Company, Newport Beach 11 I J i l l (OWNER: Cannery Village Investment Partnership, • Newport Beach Commissioner Pers6n stated that the subject establishment is within 300 feet of his residence; however, based on a conversation with the City Attorney's Office it was determined that the proximity of the property would not influence his decision in any manner and on that basis he would participate in the public hearing. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that it has not been determined where the existing building is located in relationship to the property lines inasmuch as the building is 30 feet 6 inches wide and Lot 18 is only 30 feet wide. He explained that the building either is located 6 inches over the lot line in an easterly or westerly direction, and depending upon the building's location, the applicant will have to come back to the . City for a Resubdivision or Waiver of Parcel Map. Mr. Hewicker addressed the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan public hearings and the expressed concerns to upgrade the area as much as possible wherein he stated that the subject building and the adjacent structure on Lot 19 have been in existence for many years. • Mr. Hewicker stated that to approach the outdoor dining area that the applicant is proposing, the guests would have to walk on the public sidewalk to reach the patio area. He indicated that -20- COMMISSIONERS i 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLr CALL INDEX the proposed patio area could be used for additional parking spaces which would lower the waiver of parking spaces that is required to approve the subject application. Chairman Pomeroy determined that the patio area could provide two additional parking spaces and a pathway leading to the food service area. Mr. Hewicker concurred. Commissioner Glover asked if Lots 17, 18 and 19 were owned by the same property owners. Mr. Hewicker replied that Lots 18 and 19 are owned by the same party and Lot 17 is owned by another property owner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker further replied that the subject establishment is located on Lot 18, and six inches of the building is located on either Lots 17 or 19. . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hewicker explained that if the foregoing 6 inches of the building is on Lot 19, then the building is located over a common property line where the lots are owned by the same property owner, and a Resubdivision will be required so as to create a single building site. He said if 6 inches of the building is located on Lot 17, then portions of the building are situated on a lot that is owned by one individual and six inches on a lot owned by another individual; therefore, it would be impossible to combine the two properties unless there would be a change of ownership. Mr. Hewicker explained that on that basis, the Planning Commission could grant a Waiver of Parcel Map. Chairman Pomeroy asked if the party owning Lots 18 and 19 could grant an easement to Lot 18 so as to avoid a Resubdivision. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Zoning Code requires a Resubdivision if the value of the improvements would exceed more than $5,000.00. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Hewicker replied that a parcel map has been waived where the properties are under separate ownership; however, the regulations do not allow the Planning Commission to waive a combining of two parcels when they are under the same ownership. -21- COMMISSIONERS CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Patty Spooner, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Spooner addressed the growth of the coffee establishment from a wholesale coffee house to a local take -out restaurant, and she explained the importance to expand the restaurant area. Ms. Spooner stated that an existing side door leads into the patio area, and she said that the space that would not be utilized for the restaurant would be employed as a recycling area. She addressed the petition signed by 500 residents who have declared that they either ride a bicycle or walk to the facility, and she requested that additional bicycle racks be installed in lieu of the additional parking spaces inasmuch as there are adequate parking spaces in the adjacent vicinity, including the 30th Street Municipal Parking Lot. Ms. Spooner requested the deletion of Condition No. 13, in Exhibit "A" requesting a survey of the property, and Condition No. 17 in Exhibit "A ", requesting a resubdivision, inasmuch as the property owner submitted a letter indicating that he would not be willing to create one building site, inasmuch as the old building will be demolished when the property is redeveloped. She said that the property owner's letter further states that in order to comply with a FAR requirement they would be willing to enter into a covenant to only lease two lots to Alta Coffee. In reference to Condition No. 21 in Exhibit "A" regarding handicapped parking spaces, Ms. Spooner requested that the handicap parking space be designated on the 31st Street inasmuch as it would be too difficult to provide the parking space on the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner PersGn with respect to the existing structure on Lot 19, Tony Wilson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he commented that the applicants had not discussed the possibility of demolishing the structure. Discussion ensued between Mr. Wilson and Commissioner PersSn with respect to the property owners' interest to improve the property. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission, Mr. Hewicker, and Assistant City Attorney Flory with regard to the applicants' request to delete Conditions No. 13 and 17 in Exhibit -22- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS Or a 1�o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL L INDEX "A" consideration by the Planning Commission to waive the conditions, and the question of what lots the building exists. Commissioner Pers6n concluded that inasmuch as the concerned 6 inches of the building encroachment is minimal that there should be a policy that would allow the conditions to be waived. Ms. Flory read Section 20.87.090 B of the Municipal Code, Waiver of Combining Requirement, and she concluded that the provision requires many findings. Commissioner Pers6n and Commissioner Edwards concluded that inasmuch as the applicants have a leasehold interest and not a fee interest, the Planning Commission would be entitled to waive the requirements on the basis that the duration of the use permit is the duration of the lease. Discussion ensued between Ms. Flory and the Planning • Commission concerning an applicable finding. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the applicants would be required to transfer development rights of 539 square feet from Lot No. 19 to Lot No. 18 as an alternative to a resubdivision, and he questioned the property owner's willingness to transfer the development intensity. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that if after surveying the property and it was discovered that the building was located on Lots 17 and 18, then the Planning Commission would be able to grant a Waiver of Parcel Map; however, if the building was located on Lots 18 and 19, it would require a transfer of development rights so as to expand the use. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Pers6n and Ms. Flory regarding the transfer of development rights inasmuch as the property owner supports the project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Hewicker replied that Arnold Feuerstein signed the application as a General Partner of Cannery Village Investment Partnership. Mr. Wilson and Commissioner Edwards discussed the applicants' agreement to conduct a survey, and the desire by the applicants to waive the requirement of a Reuubdivision. Commissioner Debay stated that the property owner would not want to give up • the six inches on Lot 19 so as to have full development on the individual lots. -23- COMMISSIONERS O �p ` A \\ �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Edwards suggested that the application be continued so as to allow additional time to resolve concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Persbn asked the applicants if they would agree to come back to the Planning Commission for a review of the proposed property improvements. Mr. Wilson agreed with the request. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Transfer of Development Intensity cannot be waived. Ms. Flory addressed the ownership of lots, and the requirement to make a finding that the building site is made up of a variety of lots, and each lot has a different combination of ownership. • She concluded that the subject situation would not apply inasmuch as a single property owner owns Lots 18 and 19. Commissioner PersBn concluded that a leasehold is an ownership interest in property. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Tony Shepardson, 421 - 31st Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the coffee shop on the basis that the applicants are an asset to the community. He stated that required parking spaces should not be a contributing factor inasmuch as there is ample parking in the 30th Street Municipal Parking Lot. Mr. Shepardson indicated that the existing structure on Lot 19 was a boat facility, and he suggested that it not be removed inasmuch as the structure retains the 'flavor' of Cannery Village. Ms. Jane Elliott, 508 -1/2 31st Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the coffee shop on the basis that the coffee shop has improved the neighborhood, it has improved the business community, it has many local supporters, and the applicants provide good -will. Ms. Elliott pointed out • the improvements that were made on the subject property after the applicants opened the coffee shop. She said that the -24- COMMISSIONERS • 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX property owners have an option to buy the property where she resides which is adjacent to the subject property, and they intend to develop the three lots in the future. Ms. Marianne Case, 423 - 31st Street, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein she expressed her support of the coffee shop and the local color that the establishment brings to the community. Mr. Peter Maxwell, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the coffee shop. Mr. Maxwell stated that based on the current curb and gutter improvements in Cannery Village that it would be feasible to conduct a survey of the site at this time. Mr. Maxwell stated that there would be an improvement to the adjacent structure on Lot 19 if it were painted and he requested that the building remain inasmuch as it is a part of • "Old Newport". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay indicated her desire to maintain the 'flavor' of the coffee shop so as to retain the ambiance and charm of Cannery Village. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that Condition No. 13, Exhibit "A ", states that a survey would be performed after approval of the use permit so as to determine the exact property line. Commissioner Debay suggested a condition that would require a side door to provide access to the patio for customer service. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3263 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including Condition No. 28 stating that customer service shall be provided through a side door to the patio area. Commissioner Di Sano stated that an approved use permit would give the applicants an opportunity to request that the property • owners invest in Conditions No. 13 and 17. -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pers6n stated that if the applicants come back to the. Planning Commission because a Resubdivision is required and the property owner does not agree to, a Resubdivision, that staff find a legal way for the Planning Commission to waive the requirement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n with respect to the applicant not being able to do any alterations over $5,000. without a Resubdivision, Mr. Hewicker explained that a Building Permit would not be issued that was valued over $5,000.00. Commissioner Glover supported the motion on the basis that the coffee shop is an asset to the community and brings a human level to the area and to the City. She approved the adjacent structure on Lot 19 on the assumption that it would be renovated. • Commissioner Pers6n requested that the City Attorney's Office provide exceptions to the Resubdivision requirement that would amend the Ordinance so as to address the 6 inch overlap of the building onto an adjoining lot prior to the applicants coming back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pers6n requested that the applicants submit a plan within 120 days that would consist of what they intend to do to improve the building's exterior. The maker of the motion denied the request to amend the motion. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3263 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W, including added Condition No. 28 requesting a side door to the patio area. All Ayes MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant • environmental impact. -26- COMMISSIONERS p.o tPd d "1 1 � °� April 5, 1990 is ,� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the proposed restaurant facility inasmuch as a majority of the patrons either work or reside or are otherwise already visiting in the vicinity. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities and a portion of the required parking (14 spaces) will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the parking spaces proposed to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot alley setback will not interfere with loading and unloading of commercial vehicles adjacent to the alley or with the passage of vehicles through the alley. 6. That the hours of operation of the proposed evening • dinner use has adequate on -site plus on- street parking on 31st Street and off - street parking in the nearby Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot to serve the proposed use. 7. That the acceptance of the applicant's premise of separation of the restaurant use from the wholesale business use is consistent with the intent of the FAR Ordinance and is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Adopted Local Coastal Program. 8. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit tandem parking and a portion of the parking spaces to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot alley setback will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 9. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large -27- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES R O L T Cate 1 1 ! J i l l I I INDEX for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 10. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3263 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. I I I I 11. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted • below. 2. That the on -site parking shall be revised to eliminate the fence and structures from the 10 foot alley setback, other than the support posts of the overhead structure or the structural block wall located on the westerly side property line. 3. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping and utilities, and a portion of the required parking (14 spaces) shall be waived. 4. That tables and a maximum of 31 seats shall be permitted in the interior dining area of the restaurant facility and the outdoor dining area shall be limited to a maximum of 20 seats and that any increase in the number of seating shall require amending this Use Permit. 5. That the restaurant facility shall be open only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays and any increase in the hours shall be subject to approval of an amendment to this Use Permit. Na COMMISSIONERS CALL MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 INDEX 6. That one bathroom accessible to the handicapped shall be provided for each sex, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 7. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 8. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 9. That a trash compactor be provided in the restaurant facility. • 10. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 11. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 12. That an odor control device for the coffee roasting operation shall be installed if odors become a significant problem. 13. That a survey of the property shall be performed by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to accurately determine the location of the building and structures on the subject property at which time the applicant shall file the appropriate application with the Planning Department to bring the building into conformance with Section 20.07 FAR Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. . 11111111 14. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits. -29- COMMISSIONERS CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 15. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this Use Permit. 16. That all restaurant employees shall be required to park on -site during the daytime operation of the restaurant, and after 5:00 p.m. shall park in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot or adjacent Municipal parking lots. 17. That a resubdivision be approved to combine the lots into one building site if applicable. 18. That no temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted to advertise the approved restaurant facility. 19. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjacent street, alley and adjoining properties, and that said trash shall be stored at the rear of the site. MINUTES INOEK 20. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 21. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 22. That no on -sale alcoholic beverages shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject restaurant, unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this Use Permit. 23. That the restaurant facility shall be reduced in area so as not to exceed the Base Development Allocation permitted for the site. • 24. That the sidewalk in front of the subject facility shall be kept clean and regularly maintained. Said sidewalk shall -30- MINUTES INOEK COMMISSIONERS CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 be swept, vacuumed, or washed in such a manner that any debris or wastewater does not enter the storm drain system or the Bay. 25. That two on -site parking spaces (including one tandem space) shall be marked "reserved for residential use ", and shall be utilized only by the tenants of the dwelling unit at all times. 26. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the 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, cause injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 27. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 28. That a side door be provided for customer service from the restaurant to the patio area so as to avoid the use of the public sidewalk. Use Permit No. 3377 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a use permit so as to allow commercial development on the site which maintains a Floor Area Ratio which is less than 0.25; and to allow a general office use which must be in conjunction with an Incentive Use occupying at least 40% of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of a tandem parking space for a portion of the required commercial parking spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental document. .101111111� -31- MINUTES INDEX Item No.9 UP3377 SPR 57 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 INDEX Site Plan Review No 57 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a mixed use residential /commercial development containing general office use on the ground floor and one dwelling unit on the second floor, on property located in the "Recreational and Marine Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 425, Lancaster's Addition, located at 2806 Lafayette Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Lafayette Avenue, between 28th Street and 29th Street, in Cannery Village. • I I I I I I I I ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Robert Nackowski, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Pers6n stated that his residence is within 300 feet of the subject property; however, it was determined by the City Attorney that the application would not be a conflict of interest. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert Nackowski, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Nackowski indicated that Condition No. 4 of Exhibit "A", requesting that the project not conflict with any easements, requires him to 'fGp -flop' the plan of the house and to move a power telephone pole. 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 Use Permit No. 3377, All Ayes Site Plan Review No. 57 and related environmental document, • 11111111 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. MOTION CARRIED. -32- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES RO= CALL I I I J i l l I I INDEX 0 0 A. Environmental Document: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the proposed design of the project will reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. B. Use Permit No. 3377: Findines• 1. That incentive uses are provided by the development which allow the establishment of general office or commercial uses. 2. That the proposed commercial space constitutes a significant portion of the development. 3. That the proposed commercial development is large enough to accommodate a viable business. 4. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3377 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OV� °. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � April 5, 1990 a ROLL CALL INDEX 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 and further that the proposed modification for a commercial tandem parking space is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate to the City a 6 foot wide public access easement along the entire water frontage of the subject property and along a, portion of the northeasterly side property line sufficient to make the required physical connection with the public access easement on the adjoining property located at 2808 Lafayette Avenue. 3. The applicant shall construct a physical connection between the proposed access easement on the subject property and the adjoining access easement at 2808 Lafayette Avenue. The design and improvement of the easement area, including the connection, shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Marine Department. 4. That the site plan shall be modified to relocate the on- site parking 5 feet away from the northeasterly side property line in order to provide sight distance. This may be accomplished by locating the pedestrian access to the site along the northeasterly side property line. 5. That the two garage parking spaces (including a tandem parking space) shall be for the exclusive use of the residential unit on the site. -34- COMMISSIONERS I April 5, 1990 a 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That one tandem parking space and one independently accessible parking space shall be provided for the commercial use on the property. 7. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 9. That the commercial and residential units be served with individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise • approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That the existing drive apron be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the'Lafayette Avenue frontage. That the existing power pole located at the southeasterly property boundary be relocated or removed to clear the proposed driveway. That all work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 12. 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 Department and Marine Department. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). is 13. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. -35- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES °, April 5, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 14. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. That the applicant obtain the approval of the City Council for the proposed curb cut on Lafayette Avenue inasmuch as its width will exceed 50 percent of the property street frontage. 16. That the boat slips bayward of the site shall only be used in conjunction with the proposed residential dwelling and office use on the site. 17. That only one dwelling unit shall be permitted on the site. 18. 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. 19. 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. C. Site Plan Review No. 57: Findines: 1. That the proposed site plan gives due regard to the aesthetic qualities of the harbor. 2. That the site does not contain any unique landform such as coastal bluffs. 3. That the development is compatible with the character of • the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City- -36- COMMISSIONERS 1W°�. �� April 5, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the proposed development provides substantial public views from the public waterway. 5. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on -site. 6. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 7. The development is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. 8. That there are no archeological or historical resources on- site. • 9. That the site is not adjacent to any residential district. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all conditions of approval for Use Permit No 3377 shall be fulfilled. Amendment No 694 (Continued Public Hearin¢) Item No.10 Request to consider an Amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal A694 Code as it applies to nonconforming uses and structures. (Res.1224) 1NITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Approved There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the continued public hearing was closed at this time. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, and Sandra L. Genis, • Senior Planner, discussed the provision of a variance as it was -37- COMMISSIONERS IWCITY Ah OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX addressed in the proposed Amendment, Section 20.83.030, Nonconforming Structures (B). Motion Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1224, All Ayes recommending to the City Council the adoption of Amendment No. 694. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 706 (Public Hearing) Item No . ii A706 Request to consider possible revisions to Title 15 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code related to Report of Residential Building Records. Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, proposed a revision to 20.03.020. Definitions, as follows: (c) "Agreement of sale or exchange ", and "..shall mean any agreement or written instrument which provides for transfer of ownership of real property including but not limited to land sale contracts, exchange agreements, or lease purchase agreements." In reference to 20.03.065. Refunds, Ms. Flory proposed the following revisions: To delete "After the submission and processing of any application for a Report of Residential Building Records,.. ", and to revise the second sentence as follows: 'No refunds will be made for a Residential Building Report that has had a property inspection pursuant to Section 20.03.045 unless the request for a refund is for a duplicate report. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained the time that it takes staff to process the applicable paper work to refund a fee. * Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. Al Ayes 706, as revised by the Assistant City Attorney, recommending the -38- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April s, 1990 INDEX proposed revisions of the Municipal Code to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Item No. 3, Exception Permit No. 36, was discussed by the item No .3 Planning Commission in consideration of the applicant inasmuch (Contra) as no one appeared when the item was introduced earlier in the evening. No one appeared before the Planning Commission at this time. Commissioner Pers6n commented that based on the configuration of the building and as difficult as it is to identify said building, Motion * motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. 36 subject to • the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B" with the retention of Signs "A ", "B ", and "D ", and the removal of Sign "C", and to add Findings No. 6, 7, and 8 as suggested by staff in the addendum to the staff report. Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion on the basis that brand names should not be visible; however, he said that considering the design of the building that it would not be unobtrusive to have a sign on.the south side of the building. Commissioner Merrill opposed the motion on the basis that there are too many signs on the property. Motion was voted on to approve Exception Permit No. 36, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B ", that includes Ayes * Signs "A ", 'B ", and 'D" and to add Findings No. 6, 7, and 8. No * MOTION CARRIED. t � 1 1. That the as-built signs as represented by Signs "A", 'B" and "D" on the approved plans are compatible with surrounding land uses. 0 -39- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES R O L - E CALL III J i l l I I INDEX 2. That the as-built signs as represented by Signs "A ", 'B" and 'D" on the approved plans will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the as-built signs as represented by Signs "A ", 'B" and "D" on the approved plans are consistent with the character and design of the existing structures on the subject property. 4. That the additional signage as represented by Signs "A", "B" and "D" on the approved plans is reasonable considering the double frontage of the site and the size of the existing commercial development. 5. That the granting of this exception permit 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. 6. That the Planning Commission has determined that in this case, the three signs represented as Signs "A ", "B" and 'D" of the approved plans are sufficient to provide reasonable identification of the subject business and that the request to retain Sign "C" is excessive and unnecessary. 7. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involved with the property which justify the approval of Sign "C' which represents the fourth wall sign for the subject business. 8. That the approval of Sign "C' shown on the submitted plans will be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and will be detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, and to the general welfare of the City. -40- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 MINUTES RO=CALL 1 1 1 !III I I INDEX 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations except as noted below. 2. That this approval shall permit Signs "A ", "B" and "D" as shown on the approved plans and that Sign "C" shall be removed from the property. s s s Discussion Items: Permit No. 3342 (Review- Request to review a portion of the proposed landscaping plan for the Emerald Village Personal Care facility previously approved in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3342. Said review is for the purpose of determining that the proposed landscape plan adjacent to Buck Gully is in substantial conformance with the approved plans. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85 -257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Pers6n determined that the landscaping plan is in substantial conformance with the plot plan. * I I I I I Motion was made and voted on to approve the submitted *yes landscape plan and sections with the determination that they are in substantial conformance with the plans previously approved by -41- Discussion Items D -1 UP3342 COMMISSIONERS CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 the Planning Commission and the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No 1677 (Amended) view) Request to review the City Councirs September 11, 1989 approval of Use Permit No. 1677 (Amended), permitting a change in operational characteristics of the existing Stuft Noodle Restaurant so as to allow a lunch operation during the week whereas the previous use permit prohibited the restaurant from operating before 5:00 p.m. during the week. LOCATION: A portion of Lot D, Tract No. 919, located at 215 -217 Riverside Avenue, on the northwesterly comer of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, across Avon Street from the United States Post Office. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Stuft Noodle Restaurant, Newport Beach OWNER: Ms. Nelly Brandsma, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, indicated that the conditions of the use permit are adhered to; however, the two hour parking on Avon Street is not being enforced by the Police Department. He explained that it appears that Post Office employees occasionally use the parking in front of the restaurant. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, stated that he has contacted the parking enforcement section of the Police Department when he has observed automobiles in front of the restaurant for the entire day. He explained that police enforcement would require a police officer to mark the tires and • then to follow up two hours later to govern any infractions. He commented that the City has previously suggested metered parking in front of the restaurant, and that he would refer the meter issue to the Traffic Affairs Committee at the next meeting. -42- MINUTES INDEX D -2 UP1677A COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 5, 1990 Commissioner Glover suggested that the area adjacent to the public sidewalk across from the subject restaurant be reviewed by the Traffic Affairs Committee inasmuch as she has observed automobiles parked on the public sidewalk. Motion * Commissioner Pers6n made a motion to direct the Planning All Ayes Director to submit a letter to the Chairman of the Traffic Affairs Committee to review the parking in the vicinity of the subject restaurant. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Pers6n stated that the purpose of the request was to be consistent with the City Council's recent change from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for its regular Council meetings. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to change the hours of the Ayes * Planning Commission from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. MOTION Noes * * * * * * DENIED. MINUTES INDEX D -3 PC Consider Time Change Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Debay All Ayes from the April 19, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Excused MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 p.m. Adjournment • V I I I I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -43-