Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1991COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers o ° �d - °rr TIME: 7:30 P.M. ��� £ �� DATE: May 9, 1991 o� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL . CALL - INDEX Present * All Commissioners were present. x x x EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney s x x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia L. Temple, Advance Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Joanne MacOuarrie, Secretary • x : s Minutes of April 18,1991: minutes of Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the April 18, 4-18 -91 All Ayes 1991, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. s s s Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. x x x Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 3, 1991, in front of City Hall. COMMISSIONERS o,�� oq,• ocn�'p CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request for Director Hewicker stated that the applicant, Majid Dezand, has Continuance requested that agenda Item No. 3, Site Plan Review No. 62 and Use Permit No. 3415, regarding property located at 472 North Newport Boulevard, regarding a combined commercial /residential development be continued to the May 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hewicker further stated that staff has requested that Agenda Item No. 7, Amendment No. 735, regarding property located at 1018 -1024 East Balboa Boulevard, be continued to the May 23, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 3 and No. All Ayes 7 to the May 23, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. A. General Plan Amendment No. 89- 2W(Continued Public item No.l Hearin GPA89 -2 (A) Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to redesignate properties northwesterly of A732 the adopted alignment for Birch Street /Mesa Drive in Santa Ana Approved Heights, from Single- Family Detached to Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and to establish floor area limits consistent with the business park uses in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area. AND B. Amendment No. 732 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan District Land Use Plan so as to reclassify the properties northwesterly of the adopted alignment for Birch Street /Mesa Drive in Santa Ana Heights from the R -1 (19,800) District to the Business Park District. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach • 2 COMMISSIONERS � o.o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots 61 -64, Tract No. 706, located at 2001, 2011, 2031 and 2041 Mesa Drive, on the northeasterly side of Mesa Drive, between Acacia Street and Birch Street, in Santa Ana Heights. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Director Hewicker confirmed that the Birch Street alignment referred to in the staff report was the same alignment that was previously approved by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and there being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1252 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -2(A) and Resolution No. 1253 recommending approval of Amendment 732 to the City • Council. Chairman Debay stated that the adopted realignment warranted the redesignation of the subject properties to the Business Park District from the existing residential district to reflect the surrounding land use, and that the proposed action was primarily a housekeeping procedure. All Ayes Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Modification No. 3840 (Public Hearing) item No.2 Request to permit the construction of a second floor balcony, 7 feet M3840 8± inches in width, to encroach 2 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback adjacent to the Rivo Alto Channel. This Not application has been referred to the Planning Commission by the Approved Modifications Committee. LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 241, Canal Section, located at 4110 River Avenue, on the northeasterly • corner of River Avenue and 42nd Street, in West Newport. -3- COMMISSIONERS �.p ah CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES. ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Kam Foy Yee, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Director Hewicker explained to the Planning Commission that the second floor balcony encroachment requested in this modification had been included among the several requested encroachments in the applicant's previous Modification No. 3802, and had been denied by the Modifications Committee. At that time, the applicant bad not exercised his right to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission within the 14 day appeal period, rather, the applicant was reapplying for the subject encroachment. Current Planning Manager William Laycock summarized for the Commission the various encroachments that had been approved by the Modifications Committee for the project. Referring to a statement made in the applicant's rebuttal letter, page 2, Mr. Laycock said the approved encroachment referred to was a second • floor planter in the side yard setback adjacent to 42nd Street, and not a second floor balcony. In reviewing the project plans, Commissioner Pomeroy stated he questioned if the calculation of the average encroachment area of the proposed fan- shaped balcony might result in an overall encroachment area less than the permitted 50% maximum, and asked if the shape of an encroachment were ever considered. Mr. Laycock stated that it had been the policy of the Modifications Committee not to approve any second floor balcony encroachments adjacent to the water, and that to approve such an encroachment would set a precedent on other residential lots. Director Hewicker added that the Modifications Committee, generally speaking, has always considered very carefully any proposed encroachments, particularly on waterfront or bayfront properties that might in any way impede peoples' views of the ocean or the bay. In referring to a statement in the aforementioned rebuttal letter, Commissioner Edwards asked if a neighbor's planter boxes reported as encroaching into the front yard setback had received the Modifications Committee approval, and Mr. Laycock responded • they had not. Responding to a question by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Laycock stated that the applicant had been advised of his right -4- May 9 COMMISSIONERS o'O TPpO. p� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL -- INDEX to appeal the action of the Modifications Committee to the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Kam Foy Yee, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Yee stated that in November, 1990, the Planning Department had approved his project and then reversed the decision in January, 1991. He said that he had neither the time nor the money to redesign the project. He stated that, . in his opinion, the proposed encroachments were architectural features that were permissible, that would add beauty not only to the project, but also to the neighborhood, and that none of them would obstruct anyone's views, nor block air flow or light. Mr. Yee added that the project could have been designed to maximize the allowed buildable area on the parcel. He referenced letters of project approval from two neighbors, and concluded that as there were existing non - conforming encroachments throughout the community, and that he was acting responsibly in requesting approval. In reply to a question from Commissioner Di Sano as to why the early design included so many encroachments, Mr. Yee stated that he and his architect interpreted the Municipal Code as permitting them as architectural features. Mr. Yee stated that following a meeting held with Mr. Laycock and the City Attorney to discuss the project, he did not feel it was a necessity to appeal the decision of the Modifications Committee. Responding to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Laycock stated that he had explained to Mr. Yee which architectural features the Code allows in required setbacks, and that a second floor balcony was not among those permitted. He also had informed Mr. Yee that the City examines very carefully any nonconforming designs with regards to waterfront properties that could be deemed precedent setting. In discussion with Commissioner Edwards, Assistant City Attorney Robin Flory stated that the language of the Code is general and states, "... architectural features such as cornices and eaves are allowed up to 2 1/2 feet Director Hewicker added that the ..:' Planning Department has followed a strict interpretation and allowed only the above two mentioned features. Director Hewicker explained to the Planning Commission that at the time the • applicant's project received an Approval in Concept, in November, 1990, the second floor balcony encroachment had not been noticed. -5- COMMISSIONERS o'd 6,00 -'dca CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The AIC permitted the applicant to submit the project to the Coastal Commission. The encroachments was, however, observed prior to issuing the building permit. Replying to Commissioner Debay, Mr. Yee stated that if the project were approved, he accepted the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit "A." Mr. Yee stated that two months elapsed from the time the project received the Approval In Concept until the time the encroachments were identified by the Planning Department. He emphasized that it was not his intent that the proposed architectural features would be encroachments, but rather to be enhancements to the project. In the ensuing discussion between the Commission and staff, Commissioner Pomeroy stated his interpretation of the Code as to encourage architectural variety and suggested that a modification to the Code might be in order to more clearly identify those permitted features. Mr. Hewicker voiced his agreement as far as the intent of the Ordinance. He said that, in his opinion, there were two ways to provide architectural relief. In the case of many of the smaller and very high priced parcels found in the City, one method is to design the building out to the setback lines and add on the architectural features into the required setbacks, or another approach is to recess some of the architectural features. Commissioner Pomeroy added his belief that variable Floor Area Ratios could be structured and applied allowing a smaller lot more opportunity for a larger interior space, while the same methodology would restrict the dwelling unit size on a larger lot. Commissioner Di Sano stated his opinion that particular attention must be given water front and bay front properties to protect potential views. Referring to the project plans, Commissioner Merrill identified several of the design's permitted architectural features which increase the project's size and stated his belief the additional encroachments requested were excessive. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. tion In making a motion to approve Modification 3840 subject to the findings and conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A," Commissioner Pomeroy commented that he felt the subject -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Ordinance should be revised to clarify permitted encroachments and to prevent similar problems in the future; that there were letters of support from neighbors of the project; and that the intent of architectural variety is demonstrated in the project's design. Commissioner Glover stated that she agreed that architectural interest should be encouraged; however, she could not support total build out plus additional features, and would not be supporting the motion. Chairman Debay stated that she would not be supporting the motion. She felt that the architect should have been more aware of the encroachments and that water front properties were of special concern. Ayes * Motion voted on MOTION FAILED. Noes A Site Plan Review No 62 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to permit the construction of a combined " sPR No. 62 commercial /residential development in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area where a Specific Plan has not yet been adopted. UP3415 Cont. to 5 -23 -91 AND B Use Permit No 3415 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a dwelling unit on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 3, Block 8, Tract No. 27, located at 472 North Newport Boulevard, on the southeasterly side of North Newport Boulevard, between Bolsa Avenue and Westminster Avenue, in the Old Newport • Boulevard Specific Plan Area. -7- COMMISSIONERS May 9,1991 MINUTES o'O o °on CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Majid Dezand, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Site Plan Review No. All Ayes 62 and Use Permit No. 3415 to the May 23, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. x s x Site Plan Review No 63 (Public Hearing) stem No.4 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on SPR No.63 property located in the R -1 SPR District. Approved LOCATION: Portions of Lots 30, 32 and 34, Block A -36, Corona del Mar, and a portion of Lot 1, Tract • No. 1026 located at 3014 Breakers Drive, on the southeasterly corner of Iris Avenue (unimproved) and Ocean Boulevard, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 SPR APPLICANT: Robert Bucci, Newport Beach OWNER: John Harris, Newport Beach Addressing comments from Chairman Debay, Planning Director Hewicker advised the Commission that correspondence from neighboring residents of the subject property had been received after the distribution of the staff reports and had been distributed to the Commission in a separate handout. Concerns expressed in the letters included those regarding possible drainage and runoff problems due to the proposed construction on the site. Mr. Hewicker explained that prior to the time building permits are issued for the project, the City's Grading Engineer will require -8- COMMISSIONERS 03 o�,• o�� cnp q qe Ah CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX complete grading plans of the site which will include provisions designed to protect the existing site and adjoining properties from water runoff. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Robert Bucci, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his concurrence with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." Mr. John Coons, 207 Iris Avenue, addressed the Planning Commission. In replying to Mr. Coon's expressed concern that his view might be obstructed by the construction of the proposed structure, Chairman Debay stated that the Commission has no authority to deny a project in order to protect a private view. Director Hewicker explained previous land use requests regarding the site which had received Commission approval and which included the subdivision of three lots into a single parcel to allow for a single building site. He said that due to the key location of the site in relation to the beach access road and the sensitivity of • protecting public view opportunities from Ocean Boulevard, the development on the parcel was conditioned with the requirement of a Site Plan Review. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Referring to one of the findings in Exhibit "A," Commissioner Merrill inquired as to how staff determined that public views would not be obstructed. During the ensuing discussion, Current Planning Manager Laycock referred to the displayed grading plan and said that by interpolating the existing grading measurements with those proposed, it was determined that the highest portion of the structure would be 5 1/2 feet below the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. At the request of Chairman Debay, the public hearing was reopened and Mr. Bucci reappeared before the Commission and added that by utilizing City map data, elevations had been established for the project and for sites along Ocean Boulevard. Using these elevation figures as a basis, actual physical • measurements were taken between the site elevations to arrive at the 5 1/2 feet below the curb along Ocean Boulevard. -9- COMMISSIONERS s o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES. ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the word "maximize" should be deleted from the verbiage of the finding. Mr. John Veenstra, next door neighbor, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that access to the subject project was being taken from a portion of his adjacent property. Mr. Veenstra further commented that oceanward from the subject property was 200 yards to 300 yards of parking lot. Referring to one of the letters mentioned above which expressed concerns of the Breakers Drive Association, Mr. Bucci stated that consideration would be given, during project construction, to alleviate the stated concerns. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed again at this time. Motion * - Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. Ayes 63 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That development of the subject property in the SPR Overlay District will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site • location characteristics of the proposed residential development. -lo- COMMISSIONERS Po �� �� A � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES. ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 5. That the proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards for the R -1 SPR District. 6. 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. 7. That the development has been designed to maximize protection of public views from Ocean Boulevard. 8. That there are no archeological or historical resources on- site. 9. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on -site. 10. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 11. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development. 12. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that the project has been designed so as to limit vehicular access to the site from Breakers Drive. 13. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 14. Mechanical equipment and trash areas will be concealed from view. i -11- COMMISSIONERS � o 0��� GO�q • c��q.G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 15. 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. 16. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 17. The approval of the proposed project will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, conceptual .grading plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That the public right -of -way area between the property line and the Beach Access Road be graded level with the existing sidewalk with a minimum two (2) foot bench provided behind the Beach Access Road right -of -way; that the proposed on -site block wall adjacent to the Beach Access Road have a maximum height of 42 inches on the access road side with a low landscape buffer between the A.C. sidewalk and the wall as approved by the Public Works Department; and that a concrete curb be constructed along the southerly side of the parcel to confine the landscape planting adjacent to the Beach Access Road. All work shall • be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. -12- COMMISSIONERS o� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES. ROLL CALL I IJ 11 INDEX 4. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 6. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No 1711 (Amended)(Public Hearing) stem No.s . Request to amend a previously approved use permit which Ut'1711A permitted the expansion of an existing restaurant now ]mown as the Approves Warehouse Restaurant. The proposed amendment involves a request to change the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to permit dancing and live entertainment on the second floor between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. nightly. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 63 -11 (Resubdivision No. 447) located at 3450 Via Oporto, on the northeasterly side of Via Oporto, easterly of Central Avenue, in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 -11 APPLICANT. Warehouse Restaurant, Newport Beach OWNER: June Johnson, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Lee Riley appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owner. Mr. Riley explained that because, • historically, dancing had been an on -going activity at the site even before the time of the present ownership, it had been assumed that -13- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 1 11 1 INDEX dancing was a permitted activity under the existing permit. When it became known that an amendment to the use permit was required to permit dancing and live entertainment on the second floor, the activity was immediately suspended and the owners applied for the required amendment. Mr. Riley stated that the owners were also unaware of the problems the Police Department were encountering at the establishment. Upon learning of these problems, representatives of the restaurant met with members of the Police and Fire Departments and discussed operational changes that could be employed to prevent the recurrence of similar problems. Subsequent to the meetings, Mr. Riley said many changes had been put into effect to afford greater security and to ensure compliance with provisions of the use permit. He further commented that personnel from the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board had been invited to present an informative seminar which was mandatory for the restaurant employees to attend. W. Riley concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." Commissioner Edwards questioned if Mr. Riley would agree to a . condition that would require a use permit review every six months. In response, Mr. Riley stated that it would depend if the six month review were to be on -going or just to be invoked one or two times. He continued that he would also want to know what kind of fee structure would be imposed on such a mandatory review. Mr. Riley commented he was not aware of any use permit being subjected to such a condition, but if within reason, he would agree. Commissioner PersGn stated that before the Planning Commission had imposed Condition No. 9 which authorizes it, among other possible actions, the ability to review a use permit, a periodic review had been a more prevalent practice. Assistant City Attorney Robin Flory stated that in addition to the amended use permit, the applicant is required to obtain a Cafe Dance Permit from the Business License Division which also contains provisions for revocation for dancing. Mr. Riley explained that part of the reasoning for closing off different areas of the operation during daytime and nighttime hours was to afford a simple method for code enforcement personnel to observe that terms of the use permit and occupancy permits were being met. • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." Discussion ensued. Commissioner Edwards, stating his opinion that the applicant responded only to pressure, reiterated his aforementioned suggestion that the use permit application be required to come back to the Planning Commission for review in six months, at least once. In answer to Chairman Debay's inquiry as to the cost of a review, Director Hewicker said that if the review is required by the City, there are in -house costs, but no cost to the applicant for the review. Commissioner Di Sano stated he felt that Condition No. 9, together with the provisions of the Cafe Dance Permit would be adequate for control in light of the fact that the problems associated with the operation have been identified and that the operation will be scrutinized for compliance with City permits. Commissioner Edwards referred to the Police Department memo dated March 20 and the statement "... without any significant changes in the business operation, we would anticipate that these problems will continue to occur at unacceptable levels." ion to * An amendment to the original motion was made to include an Amend additional Condition No. 11 requiring an automatic Planning Commission review after a nine month period. Commissioner Glover stated she would not be supporting the amendment as she Ayes * felt it was too onerous to the applicant. Motion voted on, - Noes * * MOTION CARRIED. original Original motion for approval of Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) Motion with the additional Condition No. 11 was now voted on. MOTION All Ayes CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed restaurant with the addition of dancing and related live entertainment is consistent with 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. . 3. That the proposed intensity of use in conjunction with the addition of dancing and related live entertainment will be -15- COMMISSIONERS A WCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES. ROLL CALL INDEX within the existing limits established in conjunction with the previously approved Use Permit No. 1711. 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping and building setbacks will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties given the developed characteristics of the existing facility. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1711(Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDMONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved floor plans. 2. The proposed dancing and related live entertainment shall be limited to the hours between 10:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. nightly. 3. That after 10:30 p.m., when the dancing activity begins, maximum allowable occupancy of the second floor of the restaurant shall be 275 people provided further that the downstairs seating does not exceed 249 seats. 4. That all music and live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the building and all windows and doors of the restaurant and lounge shall remain closed during such activities. 5. That a Cafe Dance permit shall be approved by the City. 6. Dancing and related live entertainment shall be limited to the second floor of the restaurant. 7. That restaurant development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping and building setbacks shall be waived. -16- COMMISSIONERS May 9, 1991MINl1TES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to initiating the proposed dancing and live entertainment. 9. 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, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 10. 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. 11. That Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in 9 months. Use Permit No. 3416 (Public Heari ngs Item No.6 Request to permit the establishment of a fitness facility in UP3416 conjunction with a proposed laundromat on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Approved Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposed facility will also include a movie and television area and a small area for retail sales of athletic clothing. LOCATION: Lots 2 - 20, Block 127, Lake Tract, and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, comprising the entire block bounded by 28th Street, Newport Boulevard (southbound), 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the "Retail and Service Commercial" Area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. -17- COMMISSIONERS i ��'t �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Newport Peninsula Center Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and David Baade, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A." In response to Commissioner Edwards' stated concern regarding potential traffic and parking problems, Mr. Baade summarized the expected proposed use of the facilities. He explained that similar type facility experience by the franchisors indicated it would be one person using one parking space and using both the laundry and fitness center facilities. The time of greatest usage was predicted to be in the evening hours and on the weekends, times when the least demand for parking was anticipated on the subject property. In answer to an inquiry by Chairman Debay, Mr. Baade stated he was aware that Commission action regarding Agenda Item No. 8, a request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to permit additional uses in Specific Plan Areas, might affect the subject application. 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. 3416 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." MOTION CARRIED. • -18- COMMISSIONERS .o s�d,d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Findin¢s: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and as proposed is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking is being provided on -site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding beach and residential areas. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the proposed laundromat /fitness facility. S. The approval of Use Permit No. 3416 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. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That this application shall not become valid until such time as Amendment No. 733 has been adopted by the City Council and is in effect. Should Amendment No. 733 be disapproved, this approval shall become null and void. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets. -19- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the service of any food or beverages, other than those dispensed by vending machines in the facility, is prohibited unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located mi convenient locations inside and outside the building and the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 6. That none of the on -site parking spaces shall be designated for the exclusive use of any one tenant. 7. That the second floor fitness portion of the operation shall be restricted to fitness equipment only. No aerobics classes, public assembly or Reduced FAR uses shall occur on -site. 8. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the • provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. That signs be posted on the front of the tenant space facing Newport Boulevard, West Balboa Boulevard and 26th Street, directing patrons to the available on -site parking. 10. That no outdoor loudspeaker shall be permitted. 11. That any taped music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 12. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 13. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer and that hedges in the sight plane adjacent to existing driveways shall be kept below 24 inches in height measured from the sidewalk grade. 14. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. -20- COMMISSIONERS May 9, 1991MINUTES. OO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That 93 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the commercial center. 16. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily, and any increase shall be subject to approval of an amendment to this use permit. 17. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. Amendment No. 735 (Public Hearing) stem No.7 Request to consider an amendment to Districting Map No. 11 so A735 as to establish a new front yard setback on the bay side of four Cont. to parcels located on the northwesterly corner of East Balboa 5 -23 -91 Boulevard and "C" Street. The proposed front yard setback is 73.8 feet from the front property line on East Balboa Boulevard, which is consistent with the existing and proposed residential development on the four lots. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -21- COMMISSIONERS + o • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 79 -18 (Resubdivision No. 509; Lots 10 and 11 and Portion of Lot 14, Block 15, East Side Addition; and a portion of Lot 9 , Block J, Bay Front Section, located at 1018 -1024 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly comer of "C' Street and East Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONES: R -2 and R -3 Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Amendment No. 735 All Ayes to the May 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, to allow staff to revise the public notice due to a discrepancy between the dimensions provided in the survey, the overall dimensions of the proposed construction on Parcel No. 2 of Parcel Map 79 -18, and the dimension addressed in the public notice. MOTION • CARRIED. Amendment No. 733 (Public Hearing) item No:a Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach A733 Municipal Code so as to permit additional uses in Specific Plan Approved Areas. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Pers6n stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and as there was no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1254 Ayes * * * * * * recommending approval of Amendment No. 733 to the City * Council. MOTION CARRIED. 0tain -22- COMMISSIONERS . \�\A � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion Items: Discussion ' -IN= No.1 Appeal of Dick Dodd, architect, from the decision of staffs interpretation of the Zoning Code regarding measuring the height Appeal of a single family dwelling on property located at 701 Kings Road. Upheld Planning Director Hewicker distributed to the Planning Commission copies of a document he had prepared which contained some of the existing language regarding height limits and grade as it appears in both the Zoning Code and the Building Code. Mr. Hewicker traced the language back to October 12, 1972, when the City adopted new height regulations as a result of a citizens' committee that was formed to study the issue of height and bulk of buildings in the City. The committee's recommendations included dividing the City into five different Height Limitation Zones with basic height limitations for each zone and a higher height limit allowed by use permit. At the same time, the • definition of the term "grade" was changed, basically, to what currently appears in the Zoning Code, and Mr. Hewicker read the language as it appears in Section 20.020.25 B. Mr. Hewicker continued that it was the desire of staff to eliminate the mention of October 12, 1972, as it refers to a way of measuring grade prior to 1972 and a way to measure grade after 1972, resulting in an ambiguity which was not the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Hewicker stated that the original intent of the regulation was to allow the roof planes of a building on a sloping lot to parallel or follow the contour of the slope beneath so to eliminate the creation of a high structure coming straight out and straight down. In this kind of design, it is possible to elevate the grade slightly so as to provide a level floor at ground level and to build a retaining wall and actually cut into the slope in the rear so as to provide either a structure with a one story elevation on the street level and a two story elevation at the rear or some kind of a split level structure in the middle. Continuing, Mr. Hewicker said that in past years interpretation of grades on hillsides has been done in such a way that if someone once cut into the slope and then, at some future date wanted to add on to the original structure, instead of honoring the original topography of the land and measuring from the natural • grade, the 1972 reference was interpreted to mean the height of the 23 COMMISSIONERS May 9, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX structure must be measured from the lower level. Following that same interpretation, if the structure had been raised on the front of the lot prior to 1972, grade must be measured from that higher elevation, and Mr. Hewicker stated that was not the intent of the regulations. Referring once again to the handout, Director Hewicker read the language from the section of the Building Code regarding Exceptions from Grading Permit Requirements, which lists, "An excavation below finished grade for basements, footings, retaining walls or other structures authorized by a valid Building Permit." He said that the Planning Commission had had many discussions regarding applicants desiring to excavate for a basement, gravity furnace, etc., and he believed that these type excavations should not be interpreted as needing a grading permit for purposes of measuring height under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker stated his suggested amendments to the Zoning • Code as being: 1) eliminate reference to October 12, 1972; 2) clarify definition of natural grade to include vertical location undisturbed by any man -made forces; and 3) add language to clarify that height is not measured from excavated floor surfaces or fill that has been placed on the site which artificially raises or lowers approved grades. In the ensuing discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Hewicker, it was agreed that in areas graded for subdivisions where pads have been created, natural grade is the pad as approved by action of the Planning Commission and City Council when approving the subdivisions. In attempting to determine natural grade in some of the older portions of the City, staff would use whatever data might be available, such as older photographic information or topographic surveys. If the reference to October 12, 1972 were deleted from the Zoning Code, any future need for determination of grade would be processed through a Site Plan Review procedure. Dick Dodd, 201 Shipyard Way, addressed the Planning Commission and stated that he did agree with most of the changes recommended above for the determination of grade in the Zoning Code; however, he stated that the definition of grade is contained -24- COMMISSIONERS � o.o � d r c `rte \CITY OF NEWPORT BE May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX in the Grading Ordinance and not in the Uniform Building Code. He felt that the effort should be made to conform the Building Code definition with that of the Zoning Code. Mr. Dodd stated that he was protesting a decision by Planning Department staff and their interpretation of the Zoning Code regarding his method of measuring the height of a structure on property located at 701 Kings Road, and he was requesting that the Planning Commission make a determination whether the staffs decision was correct or not. In the ensuing discussion between Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hewicker, and Commissioner Pomeroy, it was ascertained that Mr. Dodd's issue of measurement would be resolved by the recommended changes to the Municipal Code outlined by staff. Motion * Motion was made to uphold the appeal of the applicant and to All Ayes instruct staff to bring back clarifying language of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the establishment of grade to the Planning Commission. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1852 Discussion Item No.2 DP1652 Request to consider revocation proceedings on Permit No. 1852 that permitted the establishment of Hassan's Cafe with on -sale beer and wine on property located at 3325 Newport Boulevard in the No. C -1 District. The revocation proceedings are in conjunction with Revocation the failure of the applicant to purchase required in -lieu parking permits from the City. set for P.H. Assistant City Attorney Flory informed the Commission that she had met with Mr. Hassan and discussed the possible action of the Planning Commission, and that Mr. Hassan had indicated a willingness to begin making payment on the in -lieu parking fees in arrears. Mr. Hassan was advised by Assistant City Attorney Flory that she would prepare an agreement for the monthly payment and that the Planning Commission would set the amount. She indicated that due to the construction taking place on Newport Boulevard • and the loss of the Municipal Parking Lot, Mr. Hassan wanted to -25- COMMISSIONERS May 9, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX request a waiver of some type regarding in -lieu spaces. In reply to a question by Commissioner Edwards, Assistant City Attorney Flory stated that it did appear by past performance that Mr. Hassan disagreed with the in -lieu parking requirements. As a result of previous action taken by the City, Mr. Hassan had paid back a previous amount in arrears, but had not made payment since that time on fees owed for 1990. Mr. Hassan Hassan, owner of Hassan's Cafe, 3325 Newport Boulevard addressed the Commission, and said that he had agreed to make $500 monthly payments according to the aforementioned agreement. Commissioner Pers6n stated that perhaps the Commission should consider some sort of relief for the parking in -lieu requirement due to the Municipal Parking Lot being lost in front of City Hall, and at available parking in close proximity is one of the provisions of he In -lieu Parking Ordinance. City Engineer Don Webb said that • nce the Newport Boulevard widening project is completed, ticipated in 9 -10 months, there will be as many parking spaces vailable in the area as prior to the elimination of the Municipal Parking Lot in front of City Hall; until then, there is a deficiency A approximately 10 -12 spaces. n response to a question by Commissioner Glover, Planning hector Hewicker stated that the intent of the payment of in -lieu ees was that in exchange for the fee, there would be parking vailable in a Municipal Parking Lot close enough to be useful to he business paying the fee. In the case of Mr. Hassan's cafe, up .intil recently, there had been parking available in the Municipal Lot directly across the street from the cafe, in front of City Hall. sistant Attorney Flory clarified that the current issue was whether or not to set the proposed revocation proceedings for ublic hearing; any other considerations requiring action by the Commission would be a separate action appearing on a different genda. r. George Chasse, owner of Valet by George, addressed the . Tanning Commission. Mr. Chasse indicated he understood that if -26- COMMISSIONERS � q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hassan were to propose valet parking for his cafe it would be considered at another time. Mr. Chasse gave the Commission his opinion as to how a valet service might operate and resolve the parking problem. Mr. Chasse voiced his opinion that the Commission consider waiving Mr. Hassan's future in -lieu fees it indeed, he were to employ valet service for the cafe. Motion No .1 * Motion was made and voted on to drop the revocation proceedings All Ayes on Use Permit No. 1852 at this time and adopt the repayment of in -lieu fees agreement as described by the Assistant City Attorney and establish a repayment amount of $500 per month. MOTION CARRIED. Planning Director Hewicker identified the issues being considered as: 1) waiving the in -lieu fees during the time of construction; 2) status of future payment of in -lieu fees; and 3) introducing valet parking for the cafe. He requested that the Commission make 0 specific recommendations regarding the initiation of the amendments addressing these issues. Motion No.2 Motion was made and voted on to set Use Permit No. 1852 for Ayes * * * * * public hearing at the June 20, 1991 Planning Commission meeting Abstain * and for staff to address the issues of waiving in -lieu fees during the time of construction and possible waiver of future in -lieu fees. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 734 Discussion Item.No.3 Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach A734 Municipal Code so as to allow skylights to exceed the allowable — building heights. set for P.H. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Planning Department 6 -6 -91 is receiving more and more requests for skylights, and if the Commission wishes to treat the issue of sky lights the same as many other roof -top issues are treated, then they may wish to set this item for public hearing. If it is the opinion of the Commission that • skylights should not be excepted, that they should fall under the -27- COMMISSIONERS 0'0 v'd0, d o M � 'P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX same height limit as the rest of the building and therefore design the proposed structure lower, then no action is necessary. .Motion * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public hearing All Ayes at the Planning Commission meeting of June 6, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 736 Discussion Item -No.4 Request to consider amendments to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to revise the noise limitations applied to. A736 mechanical equipment, including air conditioners and pool set for equipment, in residential areas. P.H. 6 -6 -91 In answer to a question by Commissioner Glover, Planning Director Hewicker explained that this item had been requested by an air conditioning and heating contractor in the City asking that the Commission address the existing noise standard regulations with respect to the installation of air conditioning units. He continued that there is no unit made that operates quietly enough to install under the existing regulations; therefore, certain revisions have been suggested. Motion Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public hearing All Ayes at the June 6, 1991 Planning Commission Hearing. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 737 Discussion Item No.5 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding the provisions pertaining to the Ats7 construction of "Senior (Granny) Units." Not set for P.H. Planning Director Hewicker summarized a possible building • scenario on an average size lot in the Newport Heights area -28- COMMISSIONERS 0"0 doo.o, 3� p A .\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX employing the permitted building ratios to lot size. If a detached Senior Unit were added, very little yard area would remain. Commissioner Glover explained to the Commission her concern with the changing landscape in her neighborhood due to the construction of Senior (Granny) Units. She stated that what she was seeing in the Newport Heights -Cliff Haven areas was the small house being torn town and replaced with a structure built out to its maximum. She felt that the requests for Senior Units would be increasing and voiced concern regarding the actual use made of the unit once constructed. While attending a recent conference in the Monterey area, she took a tour designed to show examples of one area's (Pacific Grove) approach to the building of Senior Units. She told the Commission that she had been impressed with what she had observed: all of the units were on the ground floor, some were attached and some were separate cottages. Upon her return she asked Mr. Hewicker to investigate the methods that had been • employed by Pacific Grove to achieve what she felt was a practical approach for providing senior housing. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would oppose any action that would discourage the creation of Granny Units on lot sizes that are appropriate for them. He felt that the location and manner of providing such a unit was a decision of the property owner. He acknowledged that there was opposition in the community to the Granny Unit Ordinance; however, he stated he felt it was the Commissioners' responsibility to provide for affordable housing for seniors. Chairman Debay concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy's remarks and added that perhaps there could be a fine imposed if once constructed, the Senior Unit were occupied by persons other than senior citizens, which would be a violation of the findings and conditions of a use permit. Mr. Hewicker commented that in his discussion with a representative from the Planning Department of Pacific Grove, he was advised that that city had permitted Senior Units on lots of 8,000 sq.ft. or greater, but have since imposed a moratorium on further Senior Unit construction. The city had not imposed an age restriction with regards to the occupants of such units. -29- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Di Sano, Assistant City Attorney Flory advised that the state's Granny Unit housing laws had been revised with changes including increasing the age limit from 60 to 62 years of age and increasing the allowed floor area to 1,200 sq.ft.; however, none of the changes were mandatory upon the City. Motion Motion was made not to set Amendment No. 737 for public hearing. In the following discussion between the Commission and staff, Commissioner Pomeroy voiced his opinion that inasmuch as the definition of "senior" had been amended by the state from 60 to 62 years, it would be appropriate to change the Municipal Code accordingly. Planning Director Hewicker explained the City's current standards require a covered parking space for each dwelling unit which includes a carport, and that a fully enclosed garage is • not required unless its location is on the front one -half of the lot. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. s s s Amendment No. 738 Discussion Item No.6 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to provide for the right of the City A738 Council to review, or for any person to appeal, any decision of the Planning Commission not otherwise provided in the Code. Not set for P.H. Assistant City Attorney Flory explained that there is no specific authority in the Zoning Code for the City Council to review matters regarding enforcement, interpretation, or review of items. The request is to provide, under the Appeals section of the Code, a broad right of review by any person or the City Council on any decision of the Planning Commission not otherwise provided in the Code. • -30- COMMISSIONERS \01\ goo. o c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion ensued between the Commission and Assistant City Attorney Flory regarding interpretation of language included in the proposed ordinance. Motion Motion was made and voted on to take no action on proposed All Ayes Amendment No. 738, MOTION CARRIED. s s s ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. Adjourn. THOMAS EDWARDS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -31-