Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzleyand Hoglund - Commissioner Tucker was excused STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple- Planning Director Patrick Alford - Senior Planner Eugenia Garcia - Associate Planner Marc Myers - Associate Planner Robin Clauson,- Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston- Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin - Executive Secretoryto Planning Commission • Minutes of March 18,1999: Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley and voted on, to approve as amended the March 18th Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker, Abstain: Fuller Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 2, 1999 • INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Phillip Rowe 2231 Pacific Drive • Modification Permit No. 4843 An appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of Approval requires that use of an attic space over a garage be limited to storage only, and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living space. The applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed to allow the area overthe garage to be converted to living area and used as a home office. Ms. Temple noted the correspondence the Commission received in the Planning Department, most of which expressed opposition to the application. Additionally, in reviewing the Exhibit B for denial of Modification Permit No. 4843 noted that this recommendation for denial, if it were the action of the Planning Commission, would not actually require a modification to the structure, but merely the reinstatement of the storage area. Therefore, the second bullet point is not pertinent to the findings for denial and it is suggested that it be omitted. • Chairperson Selich, referencing the plans that were approved by the Modifications Committee, noted the concern of safety from having access from Bayside Drive. Commissioner Fuller clarified the following: • The conversion to living area in the storage area over the garage was done without benefit of proper permits and is therefore considered not - legal. • The converted storage area was finished and equipped with telephone, electricity, cable television, a heating unit in the wall, a full size kitchen sink with hot and cold running water, a garbage disposal, an under counter refrigerator and cupboard space above and below the sink counter as part of that non -legal conversion. Public Comment was opened. Mr. Keith Dawson, 2660 East Coast Highway, attorney represented the applicants stating they were out of town. He noted on the letter from Mrs. Garcia dated 02/16/1999 that the letters listed from Mr. Smith Bacon and Mr. and Mrs. Irving Burg were in support of this project. Continuing, he noted the applicants rebuttal to the reasons for denial: • Detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood and not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport • Beach Municipal Code - if this was a rental unit, it would be detrimental to 2 IPM 1 Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 4843 Modification Committee Decision Upheld City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 person's property in neighborhood. This is a home office project with no bathroom facilities. The Rowes will submit to building inspections and if this application is approved; they will have to get permits for the modifications they have done. They understand that the building permits may require that some of those modifications be removed. The approval could set a bad precedent in the neighborhood - this is a unique property that has been increased in value by the improvements done by the Rowes. Adequate area exists within the buildable area of the site for this office - this would mean an addition on the property with a second floor which would adversely affect the flow of light and air to the adjoining properties since the roof of the garage was built higher to accommodate the storage area. In conclusion, Mr. Dawson suggested that there could be a covenant recorded against the property to restrict this project to a home office use. He requests that the Commission find in favor of the applicants. At Commission inquiry Mr. Dawson stated: • There is a third level in the house, not connected and is eighty steps • above the garage. • Family friends have stayed there. • He does not personally know if it wasn't used as a rental unit. • The storage area above the garage was for the storage of sail cloth and art work and was the original request. It was not specified or requested that it could become a home office instead. • The plans submitted for improving the structure above the garage did not include the improvements that were put into the storage area. • The applicant realizes that the stairway is not to standard nor is the ceiling height up to standard. • The Rowes would have to remove staircase and are prepared to remove any access to the loft area. The ceiling is too low. Appearing in opposition to this application: Mr. Henry Wallace - 2305 Pacific Drive Mrs. Phyllis Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive For the following • Threat of rental of proposed project • Two garages, one on Pacific and one on Bayside • No ability to monitor • Cooking facilities on different floors • • Improvements done with no permits 3 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 • Original building permit states three times, "for storage only' Public Comment closed. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that this is an older building that has permits for a completely separate living area. It is very difficult to prove illegal dwelling units. What the City has, by building code definition, are two dwelling units that by zoning is single family dwelling since the improvements were made prior to the definitions regarding independent dwelling units. This is considered legal, non - conforming. For consideration tonight, this building which is the subject of the hearing, represents space that is a third living area. Mr. Edmonston noted that the use of the garage would not be allowed to be established today in terms of where it is in the setback. It is a very narrow portion of Bayside Drive, and if it were used as a garage, it would present dangerous conditions for access onto Bayside Drive. Commissioner Fuller stated he is not in support of this application because that after the Modifications Committee denied it, the applicant went in and finished the unit out with ostensibly sewer pipes, kitchen facilities and everything else. Commissioner Ashley stated he was not in support of this application as it is an egregious violation of the building code and the building permit that was issued. It is clearly not intended to be storage and it is evident that when the kitchen facilities were put in, it was an obvious intent to make this into a living unit. Under the staircase one could add total bathroom facilities. It would be a violation of the R -1 zoning. Continuing, he stated that all of the improvements that have been made that went beyond the building permit that was issued have to be removed. This area can be used for no purpose, other than storage. It is very dangerous to back out of that garage onto Bayside Drive because of the curve of Bayside Drive. I am very opposed to that garage being occupied by a resident, where they would be doing this with some regularity. He noted that the garage is being used to store two cars. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the original modification and was told that the original modification was approved with a condition that the area to be added above the previously existing parking space be limited to storage. At that time, there was no request to use this as other than storage. Mrs. Eugenia Garcia, as Chairman of the Modification Committee, stated that at the time of the first modification hearing in 1997 there was a lot of opposition from the neighborhood. The applicant had expressed that the project was for storage use, and she did not express that they would be • finishing it or adding any other plumbing. Electrical probably would have 4 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 been acceptable for the garage. There was no discussion of the finished product that you see now. The Rowes at that time were very agreeable to the condition that was placed upon it for storage area only for art pieces and artwork. They gave no indication that they were going to use this as an office. Continuing, Mrs. Garcia stated that if they had expressed at the original hearing they wanted to use this for an office then given the concerns of the neighborhood and the access point being hazardous as it is, the Modification Committee may have denied the request. The Modification Committee felt that the garage was to be used intermittently, perhaps store an antique car or boat but it was not to be used going in and out of on a daily basis due to the hazardous conditions on Bayside Drive. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee and approve Exhibit B. The uses that were permitted to be constructed for loft purposes be approved and all other improvements beyond which were allowed by the building permit be removed. Chairperson Selich asked if the Commission could include with this denial some type of notice to be recorded against this property. It would indicate that this space is to be used for storage only in the event the property is sold • to someone else. Ms. Clauson, noting that this would be a form of giving notice to future buyers, stated that this approval constitutes a city record and any new buyer would know that through a Residential Building Report. The Report would have copies of the Modification Committee decision as well as any other document affecting the property. To put a restriction of this nature on the title would be above and beyond what the regular restrictions are. Ms. Temple clarified that the motion would include the removal of the second bullet point and the addition of a condition regarding the return to an .'unfinished, non - habitable" condition within 90 days of the meeting. Commissioner Ashley agreed. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF Modification Permit No. 4843 Findings: 1. The approval of Modification Permit No. 4843 will, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, 0 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 • morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The use of the structure for other than storage use will create undue traffic hazards along Bayside Drive. • The conversion of the storage area to living area will adversely effect the use the subject property and those in the surrounding neighborhood. • Improvements to the storage area have been completed without the necessary approvals and permits. • The addition of living area within the front yard setback on Bayside Drive is detrimental to the neighborhood due to the more intense utilization of the area along Bayside Drive. • Additional living area can be accommodated within the buildable area of the lot. Additional Condition for Modification No. 4538 The use of the area above the garage shall be limited exclusively to storage only, and that the area shall be returned to, and remain "unfinished, non - habitable" storage area only, and shall not be used for living purposes, and the storage area above the garage shall be returned to an "unfinished, non - habitable' condition within 90 days of the meeting which a final decision was made. SUBJECT: Galeos Cof6 (Andrei Leontieff, contact person) 930 West Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3649 Request to convert an existing specialty food service establishment (Specialty Food Service Permit No. 61) to a full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishmentwith alcoholic beverage service. The application also includes a request to establish a new alcoholic beverage service outlet pursuant to Chapter20.89 of the Municipal Code. Public comment opened. INDEX Item No. 2 UP No. 3649 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Andre and Gordana Samardzic owners of the cafe stated that they are just about breaking even with the service of breakfast and lunch. They hope that by applying for alcoholic beverage service they can generate business during the evening. Public commentwas closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve Use Permit No. 3649 pursuant to the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3649 Findings: • 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage service is considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistentwith the General Plan. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The waiver of restaurant development standards as they pertain to the site, off - street parking, landscaping and walls surrounding the restaurant site will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The project meets the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (full- service, small scale eating and drinking establishment) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Director approves this application, for the following reasons: • The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property from West Coast Highway. • The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the property to control noise can be achieved by the • recommended limitation on the hours of operation which should INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 prevent potential noise problems. • The change to the restaurant facility from Specialty Food does not constitute a significant change which warrants an increase in landscape area. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons: • The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of desired beverages in a restaurant setting. • The project is in an area where the crime rate is less than the citywide average. • The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district in which the project is proposed is less than the percentage citywide, and the adjacent reporting districts are slightly higher than the citywide percentages due to more commercial land uses in these reporting districts. • There are no day care centers, schools, or park and recreation • facilities in the vicinity of the project site, though there are residential uses located on the bluff overlooking the property. However, the project is not expected to be a problem since it is oriented so that the activity is directed away from the residential uses. 5. Approval of Use Permit No. 3649 to permit a full- service small -scale restaurant with service of on -sale alcoholic beverages will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts. • Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages and noise. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service . use which serves the residential and commercial uses and INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 visiting tourists in the area. • The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of the facilityas a restaurant. • The establishment will provide regular food service from the full menu at all times the facility is open. • Because the restaurant does not have a bar area specifically designed for the service of alcoholic beverages, the potential number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control problems in the area should be minimized. • A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made based on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in a restaurant setting. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. Conditions: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. All applicable conditions of approval of Specialty Food Service Permit No. 61 shall no longer remain in effect. 3. The interior dining area shall be limited to 20 seats maximum as delineated on the approved floor plans. 4. One parking space for each 3 seats (8 parking spaces) shall be provided on -site. 5. The development standard pertaining to the site, perimeter walls, off - street parking and landscaping shall be waived. 6. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for the sale or service of food and beverages. 8. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 9. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to "beer and wine" and • 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 only in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. 10. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or leasing company. 11. This approval is for on -sale alcoholic beverage service only. The off -sale of alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption is prohibited. 12. Alcoholic beverage service shall be permitted in the outdoor dining area upon approval of the Police Department and the State Departmentof Alcoholic Beverage Control. 13. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 14. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to . discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. 15. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 16. No live entertainmentor dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 17. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant facility to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance. 18. The hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, daily. 19. The exteriorof the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for 10 ,11041 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 20. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times the restaurant establishmentis open for business. 21. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 22. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. • Standard Requirements 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. The proposed restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. The project shall complywith State Disabled Access requirements. 8. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in • accordance with the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 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. 10. 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. SUBJECT: Caffe Milano, Inc. (dba Bistro le Crillon) 2523 Eastbluff Drive • Use Permit No 3651 • Request to convert an existing specialty food service establishment (Specialty Food Service Permit No. 2) to a full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment with alcoholic beverage service. The application also includes a request to establish a new, on -sale alcoholic beverage service outlet pursuant to Chapter20.89 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Temple stated that it came to staff's attention earlier that day that there was some confusion related to the level of alcoholic beverage license that the applicant is pursuing. Parts of his application refer to beer and wine license only and other parts refer to a full service restaurant license. Therefore, she consulted with the Police Department in regards to whether the different type of ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) license type would create a problem in this particular location. Based on that conversation and particularly the location in the Eastbluff shopping center and in an area where there are very few alcohol related problems, it is the opinion of the Police Department they have no problem allowing this particular application to be approved with full service alcohol. From staff's point of view, we rely on the Police Department's opinion in this regard and so, if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the different type of license requested by the applicant, there would be two changes to Exhibit A for approval. • Finding 6, the fifth bullet point would be modified to eliminate the reference to beer and wine • Condition 5 would be altered to say, ........shall be limited to restaurant with • full alcohol beverage service.......: 12 INDEX Item No. 3 UP No. 3651 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that this item was noticed for the addition of alcohol beverage service so the notice itself would not change based on the application type. Public comment was opened. Diego Ostroski, representing Caffe Milano, Inc. stated that they have been in business for five years. This project includes a remodel of his restaurant as well as the whole shopping center area. They want to upgrade the restaurant to create a more french, italian atmosphere. This approval along with the application for the ABC license is needed to close escrow. Mr. Robert Fleming, 2495 Vista Puerto spoke in opposition to this application. He asked for answers to: • Why is there a case of "gradualism" here? There was a hearing a couple of weeks ago of which there was no mention of alcohol and now tonight, they want to add alcohol. • What is the Municipal Code on noise level? How many decibels are allowed? They are capable of operating until midnight, and this is a quiet • neighborhood. Ms. Temple answered: This particular permit has not been before the Planning Commission previously. Staff did process an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit within the last month or so, but alcohol beverage can not be addressed at staff level. It has to be considered by the Planning Commission. The operation of all commercial establishments is regulated by Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code. There is both interior and exterior noise standards as well as standards for the operation within commercial districts. (She then proceeded to read the standard) At Commission inquiry, Mr. Fleming agreed that this was the process he was referring to and had no further questions. Public commentwas closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to approve Use Permit No. 3651 pursuant to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A as amended attached. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None • Absent: Tucker 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No 3651 Use Permit No 3651 Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses and a restaurant use is considered a permitted use within this designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The proposed full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment is retail in nature, serving mainly persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not necessarily a destination point. It is • anticipated that the proposed use, based on its menu and limited operation as approved, will have parking demand characteristics similar to a general retail use. 4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site walls meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (full- service, small scale eating and drinking establishment) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application, for the following reasons: • The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. • Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property from and through Eastbluff Drive and Vista Del Oro. • The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the property to control noise can be achieved by the recommended limitation on the hours of operation which should prevent potential noise problems. • The change to the restaurant facility from Specialty Food does not constitute a significant change which warrants an increase in landscape area. • 5. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons: The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of desired beverages in a restaurant setting. The project is in an area where the crime rate is less than half the citywide average. The number of alcohol licenses per capita in the Census tract and the adjacent tract is below the average for Orange County. The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district in which the project is proposed is higher than the percentage citywide which is due to a relatively small number of arrests as compared to the city as a whole, and the adjacent reporting districts are lower than the citywide percentages. • The proximity of the new alcohol sales establishment to nearby residences, parks and recreation facilities, churches and schools is not expected to be a problem since a market that includes alcohol sales is located in the subject shopping center, and there have not been any problems in the local area associated with the alcohol sales. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3651 to permit a full- service small -scale restaurant with service of on -sale alcoholic beverages will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, for the following reasons: • The use is compatible with the surrounding commercial and nearby residential uses since restaurants are typically allowed in mixed commercial districts. • Conditions have been added to address potential problems associated with alcoholic beverage service, parking, and noise. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use which serves the neighboring residential and • commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 • The nearby commercial and residential uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change in the operation to add incidental alcoholic beverage service (beeF ead wise) since the hours of operation have been limited. • The subject property currently conforms with regard to parking and the addition of alcoholic beverage service will not affect the conforming parking situation. • The parking required for the facility can be easily accommodated in the common lot which operates on a first -come, first -served or shared basis. • 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. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. • 2. All applicable conditions of approval of Specialty Food Service Permit No. 2 shall no longer remain in effect. 3. Maximum seating and /or stand -up counter space for no more than 20 customers shall be maintained inside the subject eating and drinking establishment. Any increase in the number of seating and /or stand- up counter space for customers shall be subject to the approval of a use permit. 4. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to the interior of the building, unless the appropriate approvals are obtained from the Police Department and the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 5. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to "beerine" restaurant with full alcohol beverage service and only in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. 6. The approval is only for the establishmentof a restaurant type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for • the sale or service of food and beverages. 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 7. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 8. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or leasing company. 9. This approval is for on -sale alcoholic beverage service only. The off -sale of alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption is prohibited. 10. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 11. One parking space for each 3 seats of (7 spaces) shall be provided on- site. 12. The development standard pertaining to perimeter walls shall be waived. • 13. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant facility to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance. 14. All employees shall park on -site. 15. The hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, daily. 16. No outdoor speaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction With the proposed operation. Standard Reauirements 1. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic • Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 4. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. 5. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 6. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. • 7. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. • 8. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subjectto furtherreview by the City Traffic Engineer. 9. The proposed restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirementsof the Uniform Building Code. 10. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 11. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 12. All improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 13. This use permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. IF INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 14. 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. 15. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. *�e SUBJECT: Service Station Regulations Update • Amendment 885 An amendment to Chapter 20.80 and Chapter 20.03 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to update land use and property development regulations for service stations. This amendment includes a provision allowing the co- development of convenience markets with service stations. • Chairperson Selich handed out an exhibit - representing Chapter 20.80 with his recommended changes: • Add required finding for architectural guidelines. • Add requirement for a materials board with specifications and samples. • Eliminate 15 gallon size tree and require 24 inch box size or larger and minimum shrub size be 5 gallons. • Effect of Chapter - make the sign regulations applicable to Planned Community Districts with the provision that the stricter of the standards apply. If the PC standard is stricter, it applies, if these standards are stricter, they apply. Public comment was opened. Mansoor Vakili, 19021 Kilimont Terrace, Irvine - spoke in support of this ordinance. He stated his only concern of 50 square feet for limit for non - automotive sales. Rick Yost, 2246 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu commended staff for the presentation and asked support of the ordinance. He asked that the 50 square feet be increased to 300 square feet given the definition of the net public area. He speculated that in the future there would be more displays in these convenience stores such as lottery machines, ATM machines, etc. • Robert Lintz, Chevron dealer at Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur noted: 19 INDEX Item No. 4 Recommended for approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 24hour availability of restrooms - some facilities are locked during certain hours of the evening for security reasons and they operate through lock up slide out doors. If people are allowed to come in and use restrooms during those hours, it violates security. This needs to be changed. 50 square foot limit is not enough - he recommends that it be 300 square foot limit. At Commissioner Gifford's request, Mr. Lintz come up with some possible language to be added to Section L. of 20.80 -8. "One men's rest room and one women's rest room shall be provided to the general public during all hours of operation in which the entry to the cashier's area is unlocked." All facilities, he added, have different locked times. They usually close at 1 in the morning and open at 5 in the morning. Some close at 11 p.m. and open at 5:00 a.m. Optional language provided by Mr. Lintz was phrased as "entry for payment" that is stopped which means the customers pay through an outside source. Most of the restrooms are accessed through the inside. Nick Nordis, 36 Silver Crescent, Irvine spoke in favor of the ordinance. He noted his confusion with the 50 square feet of floor area limit for non - automotive sales. He asked for clarification. • Mr. Patrick Alford clarified that the customer service net public area includes any area that is used for the sale and display of items or to serve the customer. It would not include areas that are primarily used by the employees such as the cashier's area. Referencing page 2 of the staff report, Mr. Alford explained the diagrams that are not for the service of the customers. A full 50 square feet can be used for sale of non - automotive items. Chairperson Selich noted that if there was some question of this, it would be up to the City staff to do some interpretation if there is a mix of automotive and non - automotive items together. The intent of the Ordinance is clearly that it is the footprint of the merchandise. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Fuller asked where the 50 square foot come from and was answered that under the current regulations non - automotive items can only be sold from vending machines. In reality, Mr. Alford explained, service stations have open display racks, shelves, etc. carrying these items. The intent was to allow 50 square feet to legitimize that type of sales but not to allow it to evolve into a small convenience market. During the subcommittee's review, 50 square feet seemed to be proportional to these types of operations. They could apply for a use permit for a full convenience market; it would have to be 1200 square feet for the floor area that would allow for a walk -in cooler. 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Discussion continued: Signs - • Pole signs can be done with a renovation to an existing service station, as there is a provision for a waiver or modification of the regulations. A new service station could apply for an Exception Permit. • Canopy signs are provided for. • Wall signs are proportional to the size of the building. • A service station itself provides for its own identification. • Monument signs could depict the fuel prices for types of gasoline. • State law requires that signage be visible from all street frontages. • Stations have option of freestanding fuel price signs. • Most contemporary service station developments usually includes fuel pricing signs in the monument format rather than up on a pole as was in the past. • Roughly 8 or 9 stations within the City are fully signed with monument signs that generally follow this criteria. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution No. 1497 • recommending approval of Amendment 885 as modified by the subsequent staff report received by the Commission for this meeting and further modified by the suggestions of the Chairman to the City Council. This would also include language, " accessible during hours of entry for payment' referencing the restroom availability. Commissioner Hoglund requested the maker of the motion to include verbiage regarding minimum hours that restrooms be available. Commissioner Gifford suggested that an applicant be responsive to that suggestion. Public Comment was re- opened. Mr. Lintz stated that the concept of not allowing access to the restrooms is for security of the cashier who is on duty by himself during hours of operation where he /she could be subjected to injury or robbery. For instance, if he is required to have the building locked until 6:00 a.m. because of security problems in specific areas and you want to require that the restrooms be accessible then there is a conflict with security issues. You would be better of it its safe enough to open the door for customers to pay, it is safe enough for them to use the restrooms. Customers who come in the early part of the morning want to be able to pick up food items. To have the store open as long as possible is revenue as a profit center. The only reason to lock it would be security. This will be site specific. 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Discussion followed on limiting the hours, crime differences in areas and the need to be specific or not. The motion stands as is. Chairperson Selich noted for the record that he would vote in favor of the motion, but is opposed to concept of convenience markets for the reasons enumerated in the March 18+^ minutes. The ordinance is a good one and the benefits from it over ride his concerns on the convenience markets. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None Summary of changes proposed by Chairperson Selich: • Add a "required findings'section that requires the Planning Commission to find that a project is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and that the proposed site plan and architecture are consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines. • Add the requirement for a materials board in the application contents section. • Increase the minimum tree size to 24-inch box. • Increase the minimum shrub size to 5- gallon. • Revise Section 20.67.010 to require service station signs in Planned Community Districts to be subject to the provisions of Section 20.67.030 (D), unless more restrictive sign regulations are contained in the planned community development plan. sss OBJECT: Circulation Element of the General Plan City of Newport Beach • General Plan Amendment No. 98-3(D An amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to reclassify the segment of Santiago Drive located between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue from a Secondary Arterial to a Commuter Arterial. Mr. Edmonston noted the additional information: • This has resulted from a process that took place over two years. • • No opposition from residents. 22 INDEX Item No. 5 Recommended Approval City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 continue to be adhered to. • There is no foreseeable need to widen this to a four -lane road within the next twenty or thirty year horizon. • There is now a means for the residents to have additional neighborhood traffic controls. Public comment was opened. Irene Dunlap, 2201 Santiago Drive - spoke in support of this process noting the quality of life, appreciates the hard work of both her neighbors and the staff. She questioned the category as a commuter roadway, is there anything else that can take place that is not obvious? Mr. Edmonston answered that it remains on the City and County Master Plans as an arterial highway, currently posted with weight restrictions. It is the Council's intention to minimize the use of that road. This change will make it easier for additional restrictions to be applied by Council in the future. Public comment was closed. • Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to adopt Resolution No. 1498 recommending to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment 98-3 (D). Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None SUBJECT: R -A District Height Limits • Amendment No. 887 An amendment to Section 20.65.040 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. Public comment was opened. Mr. Fleetwood Joyner, architect on a project at 2128 Mesa Drive spoke in support of the staff report. Public comment was closed. • 23 INDEX Item No. 6 A 887 Recommended Approval City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Motion was made by Commissi 1499 recommending approval of Amendment 887 to the City Council. Ayes: Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Tucker Abstain: None r.» SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments to the Newport Center Planning Study Group Chairperson Selich stated this is a subcommittee to address all the issues that have been presented to the City Council at the joint meeting. He appointed himself, Commissioners Kranzley and Gifford to work with staff. They will then be coming back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation as to the approach on those items. • SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Ordinance • Amendment No. 864 Proposed amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to provide that circulation system improvements required for a development are roughly proportional to that project's impact, to allow the City Council to exempt from improvements intersections that meet criteria established in the ordinance, and to establish a threshold for traffic impacts that require circulation system improvements. Chairperson Selich noted that with the absence of Bob Burnham and Sharon Wood that the procedure for this item will be for the Commission to ask their questions of staff; then testimony from the public which will be answered at the next public meeting on this item. Commission inquiries or concerns: • Map showing intersections at or above Classifications D - to be prepared. • Build out under present ordinance identifying those intersections in excess of Classification D - as of a Traffic Analysis Model dated 1996. • Feasibility Study for improvements of deficient intersections with related costs. • Need to widen Jamboree Road from Ford Road northerly funding source. • 1996 Austin Faust report - traffic engineering firm who has been working with the City for past 15 years. • Traffic Model report to include the San Joaquin toll road and will it • diminish the LOS areas by the airport and Eastbluff. How often is the 24 .IPM Item No. 7 Approved Item No. 8 A 864 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Traffic Model updated to be consistent with the County model and how expensive would it be to update on a yearly basis? • In next staff report would like to have an index that clarifies where the documents are coming from and include a color copy of the flow charts previously presented by staff. Public comment was opened. Alan Beek, 2007 Highland noted the following: • Comprehensive update of Circulation and Land Use Elements are connected and needed for future projections. • Need study using best information for projections on 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050 for traffic to be handled at LOS D assuming no change from existing Land Use Element. • Need model to show the streets and intersections as they are now at LOS D. • Need model to show the expansion with final projections with related costs and revenue and cost of system to serve the traffic. • Phased land use and circulation elements that show the development and streets in 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050. • No one can claim entitlements when the circulation system won't be able • to serve them until 30 years from now. • He agrees with the wording of the proportional fee calculation. • Phil Arst spoke as Chairman of the Community Association Alliance of Corona del Mar noted the following with a slide presentation • Concerned with outdated information. • Use existing TPO while developing a General Plan update. • Include crucial definitions. • Satisfy legal requirement. • Taking without compensation. • Does not mandate mitigation of unsatisfactory traffic - can put money into a fund, but there is no guarantee that money will ever be used to mitigate the impacted intersection while existing TPO requires the intersection to be mitigated. • Development Agreements - remove dispensation for DA. • Need to address proportionality, Mr. Steve Poppo, 452 62nd Street spoke as President of Newport Shores Community Association. He noted: • TPO does not seem to address the Newport Banning Ranch nor the down coast development in Newport Coast. • Critical to include these developments. 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Mr. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive noted the current proposed ordinance is too timid. Proportionality needs some additional language. Will forward strike out wording to Commission for their consideration. Mr. Mike Erickson, representing the Chamber of Commerce noted the following: • The TPO should allow for an override or inclusion of intersections on "Exempt Intersection List" based on a 5/7 super majority vote rather than the currently proposed 6/7 semi - unanimous vote. • Inclusion of the "rough proportionality' concept is a key revision to the TPO. • Getting money into the City, even do it doesn't give a full particular improvement, can become seed money. • Exempt intersections - is a decision that should be a policy issue. • Level of sensitivity - should be established at 0.01 • Consistency in planning criteria - consistent capacity criteria for both long -term and short-term criteria - deal with gaps. Barry Eaton, 727 Belles spoke representing EQAC, the Eastbluff Homeowners' Association, and himself. • Administrative guidelines specifically say that all projects within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach are to be included in the modeling. • Agrees with Mr. Arst, it is clear from the language that under the proposed TPO, the mitigation money does not have to be applied to the affected intersection. Weight shall be given if that occurs. Do you really need exempt intersections at all? • The total trips generated by Committed Projects shall be reduced by 20% to account for the interaction of Committed Project trips should be looked at. Representing Environmental Quality Advisory Committee noted: • Importance of a General Plan update. • 4/5 vote should be retained in the ordinance. Existing TPO fees should be separate from any other fees (Fair Share). • Development Agreement says can merge monies - the developer gets a guaranteed commitment (entitlement) the City gets some concessions, that's the basic trade off. Incentives given to developers should not cost the City money in traffic mitigation fees. Representing the Eastbluff Homeowners Association he noted: • Concern with exempt intersections, have a list of candidate list that does not include the Jamboree intersections as there is going to be substantial growth. • Change to intersections going over an ICU of 1.0 • Refer to Master Plan Highway Program not the Capital Improvement Program. 26 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Public comment was closed. Commissioner Ashley thanks the speakers for their input. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to May 6th. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None •a� ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning- None. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- None. 0 C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None. e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Fuller excused from April 22nd meeting. *x* ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 27 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment