Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1995COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 09 �9� O Pr Mo Al 4 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: May 18, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL I COMMISSIONERS 4\60000-ml*noik 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mau 1R 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL sss A Amendment No. 819 (Public Hearing) Item No.1 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach A819 Municipal Code so as to amend the Commercial District Regulations contained in Chapter 20.33 dealing with the permitted uses in the APF A821 District. A822 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Adopted AND B. Amendment No. 821 (Public Hearing) Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code by ' amending a portion of Districting Maps No. 34, and 35 so as to reclassify all property located between Campus Drive, Bristol Street North, Birch Street, and MacArthur Boulevard, from the M -1 -A District to the APF District so as to establish consistency with the General Plan and existing development. ZONE: M -1 -A INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND C. Amendment No. 822 (Public Hearing) Request to reclassify specific parcels located on the southerly side of Westcliff Drive between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive, from the CNH District to the APF District, to establish consistency with the General Plan and existing development. -2- 4 4 COMMISSIONERS 9��9f��c�j90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 18. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots 3 -7, and the northwesterly 55.98 feet of Lot 8, Tract No. 4225, located along the southerly side of Westcliff Drive, between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive. ZONE: C -N -H INITIATED BY: The City ofNewport Beach Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the Amendments to the Municipal Code were intended to implement the provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as adopted in 1988. She summarized the zoning history of the Campus Drive and Westcliff Drive areas. She stated that issues were raised by the property owners indicating that the change from the underlying zoning of either Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial or M -1 -A Office Industrial to the APF District ' (Administrative Professional and Financial District) was too restrictive because there was a strong limitation on the amount and nature of retail uses which could be implemented under the provisions of that District. As a result, the Planning Department staff recommended to the Planning Commission that consideration of a further Amendment to the Land Use Element be considered to change the classification to Retail and Service Commercial in order to allow for a broader range of land uses in the two areas. After staff reviewed the General Plan Amendments it was determined that there were two problems with the idea from two perspectives. Staff did not view that either of the areas would ever be predominantly retail in nature. The existing development is predominantly office in nature with some retail uses mixed in on a separate free - standing basis. If the areas would be reclassified to retail and service commercial it would be necessary to alter the land use projections and thereby the traffic projections to reflect a trend to eventual dominance of retail uses. Since there are capacity traffic problems in the Campus tract area it was staffs opinion that there would not be the necessary findings for correlation between the land use and circulation element to sustain the change. After fiuher review of the APF District to determine if some changes to the District would alleviate the problems that the property owners had, staff -3 MINUTES 9 A � G� • a992 ?O90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I nnc L 4 ROLL CALL v INDEX concluded that by defining the term "ancillary uses" for the term "retail" within the District it would solve most of the problems in order to allow separate free- standing retail use on individual parcels as long as the retail would be supportive of the dominant office environment m the general vicinity of the entire airport office complex. Ms. Temple explained that Amendment No. 819 is a request to make further modifications to the APF District to minimize the number of non- conformities which would result in the rezoning, and to permit uses which tended to be supportable in an office environment. Ms. Temple stated that Amendment No. 821 and Amendment No. 822 reclassify the Campus tract area and the Westcliff Drive area to the new APF District. Several property owners expressed concerns that none of the tenants in the area had been notified of the change in zoning. Staff explained that the notice procedures do not provide for the noticing of tenants. There was a concern with respect to the difference between the M -1 -A District and the APF District inasmuch as the M -1 -A District allows one caretaker's dwelling unit per site. In an industrial complex the existence of caretakers or security -type residential facilities have been common; however, the M -1 -A District does not allow the construction of a residential dwelling unit under normal circumstances. The change does preclude the possibility for a caretaker's unit. Staff believes it would be a minor change and it is foreseeable that there would not be many caretaker units implemented in the District. An additional concern was the limitation to the type of industrial or quasi - industrial uses which would result from the change in District. There will be a change in permitted uses in the Campus tract area that will result in some properties becoming legal non- conforming if the Planning Commission approves Amendment No. 821. The legal non-conforming uses could maintain their status indefinitely into the future, and there are provisions in the Municipal Code that would allow for moderate changes and expansions to those uses with a minimal amount of discretionary review. The change to the new District would not require the use to leave the area or to set a timeframe in which to leave. The APF District allows for a number of lighter quasi - industrial uses, i.e. automobile COMMISSIONERS �imiloo)\W i 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 114— 74 Ioar ROLL CALL INDEX service and support types of uses that are currently permitted in the District. Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Temple, and Robin Clawson, Assistant City Attorney, discussed the City's policy concerning notifying property owners and not the tenants. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Ms. Temple replied that from the land use base there are approximately two significant types of industrial properties remaining in the District that would become nonconforming. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford regarding Item No. 2, Use Permit No. 1061 (Amended), property located at 4263 Birch Street located in the current M -1 -A District, Ms. Temple explained that if the use would be approved that it would be considered a legal nonconforming use if the Planning Commission and City Council approved Amendment No. 821 as proposed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Ms. Temple explained that the APF District does not provide for caretakers on the property, therefore, no subsequent applications could be approved once the zoning took affect thirty days after the City Council's action. Ms. Clawson and Ms. Temple discussed the appropriateness of allowing caretakers in the District. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Claudia Sawaya, 4360 Campus Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Sawaya stated that she owns an industrial building at the foregoing address; however, because John Saunders owns the land she was not noticed regarding the subject public hearing. Ms. Sawaya pointed out that warehousing or storage is not included in the proposed APF District; however, she has a short term ability to lease a 1,300 square foot increment for storage, and she asked if she was no longer going to be able to allow the use. In response to Ms. Sawaya questions concerning the parking requirements, Ms. Temple explained that the existing M -1 -A District '-5- COMMISSIONERS iac�9$i9��f90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mac, 1 A 100q ROLL CALL INDEX requires one parking space for every 225 square feet of office use. In the APF District the parking requirement will be reduced to one parking space for every 250 square feet of office use. Ms. Temple addressed Ms. Sawaya's concerns regarding the warehousing and storage areas. She explained that the District as currently worded would allow a mini - storage and general storage as permitted by the General Plan if approved by a use permit only. Ms. Sawaya's expressed her concerns regarding the timefimne and the financial burden that would be involved if a use permit would be required to allow short term general storage where permitted by the General Plan. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Sawaya explained that the building she owns consists of 11,700 square feet, and the building was previously located on leased property. Commissioner Ridgeway expressed his concern that there are buildings sitting on ground leases, and the property owners of the ground leases received public notices; however, the property owners did not necessarily notify the owners of the buildings. Ms. Clauson and Director Hewicker explained that not every property in the District was posted concerning the Amendments; however, notices were posted on some of the properties in the District. Public notices were also published in the newspaper, and notices were mailed to property owners. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of going door to door to distribute public notices to the tenants. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the affected tenants should have been notified of the subject public hearings so as to respond to the changes to the District zoning. In response to questions posed by Chairman Gifford, Ms. Temple explained that a nonconforming status is based on how the building has been used historically. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that a nonconforming building can be completely remodeled without going through the Planning Commission; however, if a nonconforming use is changed to a permitted use, i.e. a storage area to an office use, then it would not be possible to go back to a storage use in the future. Ms. Clauson confirmed that a nonconforming use can continue as COMMISSIONERS •9�F �$'G'�o 9 9 �F90 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A Ar..., 14 1nOr ROLL CALL INDEX its historical use without any subsequent approvals. If a nonconforming use would be made conforming, i.e. a use that is authorized under new regulations, then it is not possible to go back and become nonconforming again. Ms. Clauson explained that if there are separate uses within a building then separate uses could have nonconforming status. Chairman Gifford stated that once there is a break in continuity then it is not possible to return to the original use. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that tenants in buildings similar to Ms. Sawaya's building are generally short term occupancies, and it is not unusual to allow a vacancy space to be used for temporary storage by another tenant in the building. Commissioner Ridgeway explained that he had a similar zoning situation in the City of Corona of either pure commercial or industrial whereby the two zones could not be mixed. He recommended and it was approved by the City to rezone the entire block to ' a C -I Zone which allows both types of uses. Mr. Tom Redwitz, Vice President of Development Entitlement for The Irvine Company appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Redwitz stated that the proposed Amendments would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan designation. He explained that The Irvine Company has a pending transaction on a piece of property that the The Irvine Company owns that is entirely consistent with the APF District, but it is not consistent with M-1 -A District. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Director Hewicker and Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the list of property owners who received the mailed public notices. The mailing list was provided by the County Tax Assessors Office. Commissioner Brown and Ms. Temple discussed the list of types of uses that would be allowed in the proposed APF District as indicated in the staff report, including the cemetery /mausoleum/crematorium use and the affect that the proposed zoning change would have on the aforementioned Item COMMISSIONERS i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES XI-10 1nnc ROLL CALL I INDEX No. 2, requesting that a pet crematorium be allowed in conjunction with the veterinary hospital. Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that "General Storage" use be included in the APF District. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Ms. Temple explained that an ancillary use is intended to allow uses on separate free- standing parcels when they are considered supportive of a dominant environment. Ms. Temple further replied that in 1988 the Campus tract was designated to the APF District. Previously, portions of the tract were designated exclusively General Industrial, and another portion was designated a mixture of Industrial and APF uses. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown regarding the use COMMISSIONERS Mo 4 Al CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 11.._. 10 1 nnc ROLL CALL INDEX for specific purposes so as to allow a movement of tenants Commissioner Ridgeway supported "ancillary" uses, and he stated that if a business license would be required then there would be the opportunity for fiuther review by staff. In response to comments by Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Ridgeway and Commissioner Brown suggested that "ancillary" use be only for "General Storage" use in the APF District. Lion * Motion was made to adopt the Resolutions and recommend approval of Amendment No. 819 [Resolution No. 1390], Amendment No. 821 Res 13 [Resolution No. 1391], and Amendment No. 822 [Resolution No. 1392] to the City Council. That "General Storage" be amended under the APF Res 13 District, to "anc" Use. Res 13 In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Ms. Temple explained that " assessory' use means that the use has to be an assessory to ' a specific use on the property. In response to questions posed by the Planning Commission, Director Hewicker stated that the motion to approve the Amendments would change the permitted uses in the APF District. Ms. Temple explained the possibility of drafting an overlay District to broaden out the uses in the Campus tract area. The suggested changes to the Amendments are a liberalization of the permitted land uses throughout the City. Commissioner Brown reviewed the suggested uses in the APF District as indicated in the attachment to the staff report. Commissioner Brown suggested that Mini-Mart use be changed from a `yes" to requiring a use permit. Commissioner Ridgeway amended his motion that Mini-Mart should be changed from "yes" in the APF District to a "use permit" requirement. Director Hewicker addressed previous comments concerning the cemetery/mausoleum/crematonum use and caretaker's residence use and he asked if the Planning Commission wanted to include the foregoing uses as part of the animal hospital in Retail Service Commercial and APF Districts subject to a use permit? Commissioner Ridgeway amended his motion to include the foregoing comment. 1 Ayes Motion was voted on as amended. MOTION CARRIED. 0 -9- Im f M, COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 18 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX ss* Use Permit No. 1061 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the UP1061A establishment of a veterinary hospital along with pet grooming services boarding facilities which included outdoor kennels, and exercise areas for Approved animals, on property located in the M -1 -A District. The proposed amendment involves a request to construct a new veterinary hospital building with interior dog nuns, and a pet crematorium in addition to the existing veterinary hospital building and relocated outdoor dog runs. LOCATION: Lot 3, Tract No. 5169, located at 4263 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and MacArthur Boulevard, ' across from the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Back Bay Veterinary Hospital, Newport Beach OWNER: Dr. George Katcherian, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dave Bartlett, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He supported the Planning Commission's approval of Item No. 1 to reclassify the subject property from the M -1 -A District to the APF District, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. ' -10- COMMISSIONERS Mo Al 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 MINUTES Aduv 12 1004; ROLL CALL I INDEX tion M Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1061 1 Ayes ( (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed application is support service in nature and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking will be provided on -site for the proposed development. 3. That the proposed expansion of the subject facility will not have any significant environmental impact. COMMISSIONERS • 9�F�i 9����9 r 4 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1061 (Amended), as approved on February 20, 1992 shall be fulfilled. 3. That prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed crematorium, the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Air Quality Management District relative to the installation and operation of the crematorium 4. That the exterior walls of the proposed building shall be set back ' one and one -half inches from the side property lines for seismic movement (wall deflection). 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 7. That the crematorium shall meet the fire safety precautions of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code, Article 11. The new building shall require either an automatic fire sprinkler system or a fire apparatus access road with approved provisions for emergency vehicle circulation. 8. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is -12- COMMISSIONERS • 9n�99��c;�0 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mau 1 R 1001 ROLL INDEX CALL detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. ■x* A Use Permit No. 3555 (Public Hearing) Ite4i No, Request to permit the establishment of a full service outdoor restaurant uP3555 with incidental alcoholic beverage service, live entertainment and valet parking on property located in the APF -H District. The proposal also Approved includes: a request to transfer development entitlement. from Fashion Island to the restaurant site located in Block 600 of Newport Center. AND B. Traffic Study No. 104 (Public Hearin a) ' Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the establishment of a full- service restaurant on the subject property. LOCATION: Parcel 3, of Parcel Map 25 -14 (Resubdivision No. 271), located at 630 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive, between Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF -H APPLICANT: Dennis Constanzo (Twin Palms Restaurant), Pasadena OWNER: The ovine Company, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that inasmuch as staff had a concern that the noise from the restaurant could affect the surrounding land uses, and that a large portion of the restaurant is an outdoor restaurant, that Condition No. 20, Exhibit "A ", was revised to address the concern. He ' -13- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 9�A� -cam CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 7,X.., IQ 1004 ROLL CALL INDEX pointed out that the Four Seasons Hotel is the nearest quasi- residential use to the proposed outdoor restaurant, and he expressed a concern that noise from the restaurant could be transmitted to the hotel guests. He said that the noise limit of 55 dBA as suggested in the revised Condition No. 20 between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. is the loudest noise level that would be allowed in a residential area during the day, and typically the noise level drops down to 50 dBA in the evenings. He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider a lower noise level during the evening hours of 50 dBA during the evening hours and 55 dBA during the daytime hours. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Director Hewicker replied that a Noise Ordinance is currently pending before the City Council. The current Noise Ordinance is inadequate as it affects residential uses unless the nuisance abatement regulation is utilized. The language in revised Condition No. 20 is designed to reflect what would be ' contained in the proposed Noise Ordinance. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dennis Constanzo, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. Constanzo, Director Hewicker explained revised Condition No. 20, Exhibit "A ". He stated that from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. it would be 55 dBA, and from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. it would be 50 dBA at the nearest hotel room. Mr. Constanzo concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", as revised; however, he stated that the applicant would prefer the original Condition No. 20, stating "that the noise from the proposed live entertainment shall be confined to the site". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, 1W Constanzo stated that construction would commence as soon as possible inasmuch as the goal is to open the restaurant on October 15, 1995. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. ' -14- COMMISSIONERS M A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 11ir.v 12 1004; ROLL CALL I INDEX Commissioner Di Sano stated that the subject restaurant has a fine reputation in the Pasadena area, and it would be a fine addition to the City of Newport Beach. He supported revised Condition No. 20 based on the 4 4 COMMISSIONERS \111\050 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ma., 12 1004; ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major; 'primary - modified,' or'primar� street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on twelve of the eighteen study intersections and that the ICU analysis for six of the eighteen intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3555 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. 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. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls and landscaping surrounding the restaurant site will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. ' -16- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES %f - -- tO 1Anc ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the restaurant facility. 8. That the General Plan Transfer of 11,000 sq.ft. from Fashion Island to Block 600 Newport Center is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3555 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 further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. ' Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of "net public area" (175 spaces) shall be provided on -site. 3. That the development standard pertaining to perimeter walls and landscaping shall be waived. 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 5. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. -17- COMMISSIONERS 9i i CTT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ll,f- 14 1000 ROLL CALL I INDEX 7. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 8. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That a valet operations plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. COMMISSIONERS 9� \�5 *'\162 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •MINUTES ILA.- 14 1004; ROLL CALL I INDEX storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 19. That dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20. That the noise from the proposed live entertainment shall not exceed a sound level of 1) 60 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. at any surrounding residential unit; 2) 65 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. at the nearest commercial building (600 Newport Center Drive) across Newport Center Drive; and 3) 55 dBA between 7:00 am and 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. at the nearest hotel room, unless superseded by the adoption of a comprehensive Noise Control Ordinance. 21. 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. 22. 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. * *r COMMISSIONERS i Ni9�y�� dF�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES X ff— 10 ,nec ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1202 (Continued Public Hearing) item N Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on V1202 , property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the a ro osed allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed tout' t o development provides the required amount of open space, but the 6/8/95 location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right - or -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach 16 inches± with a roof overhang, and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into said abandoned right -o£- -way. The application also includes a ' modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. LOCATION: A portion of Block "D ", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR(2178) APPLICANT: Robert Losey, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Adams stated that inasmuch as he was absent from the April 6, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, that he had reviewed the Planning ' -20- 0_4 COMMISSIONERS 90'O�cT. • c�9 ��F90 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commission Mmutes and he had listened to the recorded tape of the public hearing. Commissioner Adams and William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, discussed the proposed plan on display that compares the original requested plan as opposed to the revised plan. Mr. Laycock explained that the revised plan indicates that six inches of the proposed second floor deck adjacent to Bayside Drive is being eliminated and the roof of the proposed building would be slightly lowered. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert S. Losey, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Losey explained that one revision to the original plan was that the second floor balcony was moved back six inches so as not to block or encroach any private views as requested by Mr. Jeff Brown. The roofline of the structure was lowered by six feet as requested by Mr. Ross Billings so as to ' preserve Mr. Billings' bay view. Mr. Losey pointed out that the revised roofline is lower than could be built without a variance. Mr. Losey said that he did not have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Bill. Phalen, 317 Carnation Avenue, to reach a compromise regarding Mr. Phalen's concerns; however, the garage was moved back and the size of the garage was reduced so the garage would be smaller and more space would be provided between Mr. Phalen's from doorway and the garage. In response to other neighbors' concerns, Mr. Losey stated that the proposed building was reduced to approximately 3,900 square feet, 65 percent of the structure is below the grade of Carnation Avenue, and 840 square feet of the floor area is subterranean and exists below the garage. 1W Losey concluded that the structure is a small footprint, and within the spirit of Corona del Mar. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams regarding the revised plan to reduce the balcony depth by six inches, Mr. Losey explained that the revision was made to accommodate the residents on Bayside Drive. He said that by reducing the balcony depth by six inches, it would be within the building envelope of the homes on Bayside Drive, and their private views would not be impacted. Mr. Brown indicated that his ' -21- COMMISSIONERS A � 0 X9 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Bayside Drive view would not be affected inasmuch as the existing adjacent pink condominiums impact his bay view. Mr. Jeff Brown, 2715 Windover, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown addressed his numerous meetings with Mr. Losey concerning the subject project, and the reduction of the balcony depth by six inches. Mr. Brown felt confident that the proposed variance would not block any views, but the structure that would be allowed without a variance would block views. Mr. Joe DiPaola, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Mr. William Smid, the property owner of 401 Ferr leaf Avenue. He stated that Mr. Losey should have been aware of the existing easements, and the existing setback requirements; however, he applied for a variance at the expense of the neighbors. The Planning Commission has an obligation to consider the impact on the neighbors based on Section 20.82.020 of the ' Municipal Code. Mr. DiPaola addressed the petition and letters that were signed by the neighbors opposing the proposed variance. He referred to his letter dated May 17, 1995, with photographs attached indicating how the views from Mr. Smirl's property and other vantage points would be impacted. If the Planning Commission would approve the subject variance, and it affects adversely the property rights of the neighbors, it is almost tantamount to an inverse condemnation; therefore, it could make the City liable to the neighbors for the decrease in property values due to the fact that their views have been taken away. He pointed out that Mr. Losey has never spoken with Mr. Smirl regarding Mr. Smirl's concerns. Mr. Rick Smirl, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of his father, W. William Smirl. He stated that Mr. Smirl opposes the proposed variance on the basis that the project would impact the view from his property, and it would depreciate the value of his property. It was Mr. Smirl's opinion that when he purchased his property at 401 Fen-deaf Avenue that the City would enforce the zoning requirements so as to protect his property rights. He concurred with Mr. DiPaola's comments that Mr. Losey had knowledge of the zoning requirements when he purchased his property. Mr. Losey has not demonstrated sufficient ' -22- COMMISSIONERS •9�F9����90 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 719- 1 4 1 QQJZ ROLL CALL INDEX grounds to support the granting of the variance. The neighbors are not opposing Mr. Losey's right to build, but they are opposing his right to take away the views of others and circumvent the Zoning Ordinance. He said that Mr. William Smirl contacted Mr. Losey before the applicant contacted him so as to discuss his concerns. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, W. Smirl replied that if the building would be constructed within the currently entitled envelope that there would be some view obstruction. Mr. Smirl and Commissioner Adams discussed the extent of the structure's encroachment into the view sightline from Bayside Drive. Mr. Bill Phalen, 317 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his opposition to the subject project. The structure would have a negative impact on his property values. Mr. Phalen submitted photographs showing the entryway to his property, and the proximity of the proposed structure to his entryway. W. Phalen objected ' to where the story poles were installed inasmuch as they were set up away from his property, and on. that basis it was difficult to determine what impact the proposed structure would have on his property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, W. Phalen replied that the revised plans open up the area adjacent to the garage, but the plan does not open up the area adjacent to his front door. Mr. Phalen and Commissioner Adams discussed the revised plan and what impact the proposed structure would have surrounding the front door area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Phalen replied that his property is currently for sale. Mr. Ross Billings, 314 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Billings referred to his letter dated May 18, 1995, addressed to the Planning Commission. He said that the revised plans had little affect on his views. Mr. Billings stated that if the right -of -way would have been paved from the top of Carnation Avenue to Bayside Drive then Mr. Losey would probably not have received the 10 foot front yard encroachment adjacent to Carnation Avenue that was granted by the Planning Commission in 1992. He suggested a compromise that would allow Mr. Losey to move into said area, and in exchange to drop the -23- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 F`O MINUTES IQ I ooc ROLL CALL INDEX roofline so as to provide a view of the lights and water from Mr. Billings' property. Mr. Billings suggested that the height of the structure be reduced, and to expand the dwelling easterly into the Carnation Avenue right -of -way to allow the neighbors the benefit of the surrounding views. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that Mr. Billings' property would be the most affected by the proposed project, and he concurred with Mr. Billings' alternate proposal. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown, Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer, replied that the Carnation Avenue right -of -way was vacated and the City has no interest in the right -of -way. However, the City is interested in the easement in the subject right -of -way for public utilities. A suggested condition is to expand the existing six foot wide easement to a width of 15 feet which would provide mobility if at some future time additional utilities would be needed or repairs needed to be made to the existing utilities. Director Hewicker further explained that there have been ' a number of discretionary action that have been taken by the City over the years with respect to the properties on either side of abandoned Carnation Avenue. There is a substantial view opportunity from the end of Carnation Avenue, across Bayside Drive to Begonia Park. When the condominiums were built at the corner of 3eaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue on the easterly side of the street there was discussion regarding the preservation of the opening at the end of the street. Director Hewicker addressed the possibility of further expansion into the abandoned Carnation Avenue right - of -way, and the obstruction of public view whereby stating that one alternative may be to lower the building so as to preserve private views. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Director Hewicker explained that originally the staff recommended that construction not be allowed on the upper levels within the 10 foot front yard setback, but to allow the encroachment below the street elevation of abandoned Carnation Avenue. Ms. Lila Crespin, 2600 Bayside Drive, and property owner at 707 Begonia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Crespin stated that the Crespin's purchased their property to enhance their retirement income, however, if the variance would be approved then it would have a ' -24- 4 4 COMMISSIONERS i � \6 - 1\10\*3A* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES wX -. io innr ROLL CALL 0 INDEX negative impact on their property. She agreed with Mr. Billings' comments concerning the easement, and that the ahemate plan would preserve their view and property rights. In response to questions posed by Ms. Crespin, Commissioner Ridgeway replied that on Bayside Drive there is no modification to the Zoning Code for any encroachment being granted or requested. Mr. Losey is within his rights with respect to the Bayside Drive frontage, and within his right to request the square footage. The question concerning the proposed project is the footprint of the structure as opposed to the size of the structure. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred with Mr. Billings to move the square footage onto a portion of abandoned Carnation Avenue and lower the mass of the building. Commissioner Adams stated that there will be some view blockage from the variance on the westerly side of the property, but it is clear that if the building would be constructed in its entitled envelope that there would still be a significant view blockage from Bayside Drive. The Planning Commission is ' considering what the incremental increase is going to be, as a result of the subject variance. Mr. Eric Mossman, 326 North Newport Boulevard, architect for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mossman stated that if the building were built within the maximum height allowed, and the setbacks required by the zoning regulations, then the visual impact and the view blockage would be far greater than proposed. The house is under the 28 foot mid- height requirement, and the open space and the extreme setbacks that are required for the lot reduces the buildable footprint to approximately 1,340 square feet which is approximately 25 percent of the 5,560 square foot lot. The applicant is proposing an approximate 34 percent lot coverage. Commissioner Brown concurred that the individual that is being severely impacted is Mr. Billings, and to a lesser extent, Mr. Phalen. Discussion incurred between Commissioner Brown and Mr. Mossman regarding Commissioner Brown's concerns regarding the proposed guest room that is located above the garage, and the volume that rises above the entryway covering the stair to the guest room. ' -25- COMMISSIONERS • I�9 �2�Fa 4 MO, 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 111f— IQ 1 nnc ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Director Hewicker replied that technically speaking the right -of -way for Carnation Avenue between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive was abandoned by the Board of Supervisors prior to the incorporation of the City. There is no public right -of -way on Carnation Avenue, it is a private right -of -way, and there are easements that the property owners have on each side for mutual egress/ingress to Seaview Avenue. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Losey replied that he attempted to contact the Public Works Department to discuss the feasibility of encroaching into abandoned Carnation Avenue so as to lower the house by expanding out however, staff replied that it was not an option Mr. Mossman stated that the house could be lowered by approximately four feet if it were constructed with a flat roof wherein he explained how that could be accomplished. 1 In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, discussion followed concerning the expansion of the structure, and the affect the structure would have on the sewer easement. Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that the applicant and the Public Works Department come to an agreement concerning the abandoned right -of -way. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that a flat roof would not be in keeping with the neighborhood or Corona del Mar. The public hearing was closed in connection with this item tion * Motion was made to continue Variance No. 1202 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 1995, to give the applicant and the architect time to meet with the Public Works Department concerning the project. Commissioner Brown requested a reasonable expansion of the right -of- way on both sides of the center fine of Carnation Avenue for the widened easement suggested by the Public Works Department. Mr. Edmonston stated that the plot plan indicates that if the additional nine feet were provided for the wider easement, that would leave an additional ten feet in -26- COMMISSIONERS • 9� ��cT 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Wx-lQ 160C ROLL CALL INDEX what is currently an ingresslegress easement for development. The Public Works Department does not object to the building extending into the additional ten feet of the abandoned right -of -way. Suggested Condition No. 6 in Exhibit "A" (Revised) provides for an overall easement of fifteen feet, and it would not only leave the ten feet of encroachment into the setback that has been requested but an additional ten feet beyond that. The Public Works Department does not have a problem with that. Chairman Gifford asked if that is with the entire nine feet of additional space that is going on to the applicant's side? Mr. Edmonston agreed. Chairman Gifford determined it would be possible to distribute that a little differently with Mr. Billings' cooperation, that there may be an additional number of feet available. Mr. Edmonston stated that it may be possible after looking into where the utilities are located within the easement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Losey reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he would agree to a continuance with financial reluctance. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the applicant has reflected a substantial compromise in the redesign of the home by moving the structure back by six inches to be within the normal building envelope. The roof area is one area that the applicant has not been able to achieve what could be achieved by lowering it four feet. If there would not be a flat roof it is possible to create a mansard roof which is a version of flat roof that has a tile accent and minimizes the stark mass. Consideration was made to grant the variance subject to the reduction of the roof height by four feet. He determined that it would be in everyone's best interest if the applicant would get the requested square footage with a lower roof height on the structure. Mr. Losey stated that a compromise position would be for the architect to reduce the roofline four feet, and come back with the plans as they are just four feet lower. The additional compromise would be to come back with something from Public Works that would be more pleasing in design. Commissioner Pomeroy responded that if the applicant did not receive the cooperation from the Public Works Department and the architect lowered the roof by four feet that he would support the variance. ' -27- COMMISSIONERS • �C,'F9f9��F�0 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES X l — 1 0 1 nnz ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Gifford stated that if there would be some technical reason why it is not possible to construct a portion of the building in the abandoned Carnation Avenue, it is important to have an alternative in mind. Mr. Losey stated that the Public Works Department informed him that the sewer line goes down to Cameo Shores and it is very deep under this portion of Carnation Avenue. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Losey stated that he would agree with suggested Condition No. 32 for development as stated in the staff report if the expanded space were available in the Carnation Avenue right -of -way through the Public Works Department, and then he would come back and acknowledge the ten foot front yard setback above the street elevation of the private street for a view corridor. Ayes Motion was voted on to continue Variance No. 1202 to the June 8, 1995, Planning Commission meeting based on the direction given by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. s ** Discussion Items: Disc.Ite Temporary Use of Land No. 1 Request to allow the temporary installation of a 750 sq.ft. trailer at the Temp.Use FExson Metal Finishing site, on property located at 835 -847 Production of Land Place, in the M - 1 -A District. Authoriz Commissioner Di Sano expressed his concern that a temporary structure could become a blight if it would be allowed to continue to be placed on the site. In response to comments by Chairman Gifford, James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that the Planning Director has the authority to grant the use for ninety days provided that the Director is given the approval of the ' -28- ms ed COMMISSIONERS 4 Mo Al 4 9 ��O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission. If the request is in excess of ninety days the Planning Director could extend the request for an additional period of time, or the Planmg Commission could require the applicant apply for a use permit. A use permit could have a condition requiring a time limit after which time the applicant would have to remove the trailer and restore the premises to its original condition. Director Hewicker stated that the intent of Condition No. 3 is if the request is for more than ninety days, then the applicant should apply for a use permit. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that there was a fire in one of the buildings and the applicant is waiting for a settlement from the insurance company. Mr. Joe Cain, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Hixson Metal Finishing. He explained that the applicant requested a temporary permit with the intent to apply for a use permit inasmuch as the trailer may be on the site for up to one year. The temporary request allows ' the applicant to install the trailer immediately as opposed to the time needed to process a use permit, tion Motion was made and voted on to grant the Planning Director the 1 Ayes authority to allow the temporary installation of a 750 square foot trailer. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 824 Mo • 2 Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach A 824 Municipal Code so as to allow restaurants and specialty food uses to PH set expand to include outdoor dining up to 25 percent of "net public area" for upon application to the Planning Director; and to establish parking '.' 6/6/95 standards for restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, reviewed the subject request. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that fast food restaurants should be excluded from the Amendment, and the Ordinance should be -29- 4 COMMISSIONERS \1F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES X1--. 10 1 nnz ROLL CALL INDEX directed at the sit -down restaurants. Ms. Clauson stated that the Ordinance does not apply to fast food, take -out, or specialty food restaurants. She asked if the Planning Commission has a desire to include specialty food uses in the Amendment? Ms. Clauson indicated that many specialty food uses are located up to a front property line, and the issue is if they should encroach onto a public sidewalk. A separate public policy decision for the City Council to make is whether or not they would allow outdoor dining on public sidewalks. She said that the Planning Commission could eliminate specialty food uses from the Ordinance and address the use on a separate basis. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he would prefer to take specialty food uses out of the Amendment inasmuch as it creates a problem for parking and the use of the land. Chairman Gifford concurred with Commissioner Ridgeway. She stated that there are specialty food establishments in the City that she felt were ' not aesthetically pleasing. She indicated that specialty food uses could be addressed at a later date. She suggested that the Ordinance address restaurants that provide table service so there would be no unkempt tables and a litter problem. She further stated that she was uncomfortable with a 500 square foot limitation inasmuch as it makes it a small increment, and not substantial enough for a restaurant to make an investment. In response to the 500 square foot limitation, Ms. Clauson explained that if there would be a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot restaurant there would be the potential for a very increased outdoor dining area and that could begin to impact parking. They are also not prohibited from including additional outdoor dining with a use permit. Chairman Gifford confirmed that a proposed condition states that it could not be done if it eliminated any parking spaces, and she agreed that it could increase some parking demand. However, she could agree to that given the condition that they could not eliminate any parking spaces. Ms. Clauson commented that the proposed Amendment would allow the existing "net public area" to be expanded up to 25 percent in the form of outdoor dining. ' -30- COMMISSIONERS Mc 4 A= I L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mov 12 100; ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Chairman Gifford stated that the limitation of 500 square feet is so marginal that it would not encourage a substantial investment for outdoor dining to make it a quality establishment. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that a typical dinner house is approximately 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that 500 square feet be modified to 1,000 square feet whereby Chairman Gifford agreed. �tion * Motion was made to direct staff to come back to the Planning Commission on June 8, 1995, with an Ordinance that would incorporate the aforementioned suggestions, delete specialty food uses, limit the expansion of outdoor dining to 1,000 square feet, and limit the Amendment to restaurants with table service. Commissioner Brown stated that the proposed Ordinance is intended to provide more "alfresco" dining. He contemplated specialty food use, ' and he described the parking and traffic circulation problems at the Dietrich's Coffee Restaurant in the Backbay Court shopping center in the mornings. Commissioner Brown suggested an amendment to the motion that the Amendment be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for their comments to the Planning Commission. Chairman Gifford stated that the EDC will address the issue at the forthcoming public hearing. Commissioner Brown discussed consideration of the proposed height of the railing and the type of the overhang surrounding the outdoor dining areas. Director Hewicker stated that the intent is to provide a process if a restaurant wanted to install a barrier for seasonal reasons, and to provide a railing of adequate height so there would be no problems with the ABC. Chairman Gifford requested that the staff come back with a list of the non - specialty food outdoor uses permitted by use permit for Planning Commission guidelines. _l Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ' -31- COMMISSIONERS 0 T y9�9o�L 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL s ** Request to consider reviewing current requirements for offstreet No. 3 parking, spaces in -lieu parking spaces landscaping and floor areas ratios in the older commercial areas of the City. Review o require. Chairman Gifford stated that the item in its present configuration would include the entire City. She asked if it would be agreeable with the Planning Commission that the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee consider the commercial districts on Balboa, and staff could analyze the Committee's comments. Commissioner Pomeroy agreed with the suggestion based on the numerous problems in the Balboa area, and he suggested that the review of the requirements could subsequently be moved to other areas of the City. ' ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add l i Business a.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee. Commissioner Brown stated that at EDC the Service Committee meeting on April 26, 1995, there was a presentation by representatives from several City Departments concerning what the Departments are doing to provide better service and to streamline processing. The outdoor dining ordinance, the older industrial rezoning area, one -stop processing, use of outside contractors for over -flow, and establishing a timeframe and performance guidelines for processing were discussed. b.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee. Chairman Gifford stated the purpose of the Committee is to look in a coordinated way at the BPPAC commercial districts on the Balboa Peninsula, including the commercial use at Superior Avenue and West Balboa Boulevard. She was appointed to the Committee as the Planning Commission representative to review the commercial uses. ' -32- COMMISSIONERS Mo Al r r t<`9j y��90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX c.) Matters which 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 tion c.) Requests for excused absences - Motion was made and voted on to Ridgeway 1 Ayes excuse Commissioner Ridgeway from the Planning Commission meeting excused of June 8, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 p.m. ' GAROLD ADAMS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ' -33-