Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1987COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. 0AO�mv DATE: May 21, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x Commissioners Winburn and Debay were absent. - - Absent x EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator - Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer Bill Luttrell, Assistant Planner Dee Edwards, Secretary a t x Minutes of May 7, 1987: Minutes of May 7, Motion was made to approve the May 7, 1987, Planning 1987 Oon x x K x K Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. nt x Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda Planning Director James Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 15, 1987, in front of City Hall. s • ,t Request for Continuances: - Request for Continuance James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that Item No. 8, Modification No. 3263 (Appeal), Richard P. Hausman, applicant, requesting the construction of pool safety fences on property located on Harbor Island, has been • withdrawn from the agenda by the appellant, the Harbor Island Community Association. � r x COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 ym F� F�G� oqF� G� 9 Noy CC9� �9t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Exception Permit No. 27 (Discussion) Item No.l Request to permit the installation of a fourth wall EP No. 27 sign on the Newport Center Marriott Hotel facility where the Zoning Code permits a maximum of three wall Approved . signs per building. The proposed sign will identify a lounge within the hotel building. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 75 -33 (Resubdivision No. 497), located at 900 Newport Center Drive, on the south- westerly corner of Newport Center Drive. West and Santa Barbara Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: Heath and Company, Los Angeles OWNER: Newport Beach Marriott Hotel, Newport • Beach The discussion was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Joe Beasley, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Beasley stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. 27, Ayes x x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed sign will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed sign will not have any signifi- cant environmental impact. 3. The proposed signage and graphics are consistent with the character and design of the Marriott • Hotel complex. -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES c - May 21, 1987 G 0%0 RG 9N P�9� A .yam � °yc9y y ;9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the total square footage of signs on the southeasterly frontage of the hotel building is below the maximum permitted. 5. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code, and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neigh- borhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and elevation. 2. That the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the proposed sign prior to its installation. Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3238(A) permitted the establishment of a daytime take -out and a nighttime full service restaurant with on -sale beer and Approved wine on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. Said approval also included a waiver of a portion of the off - street parking spaces required for the daytime take -out restaurant. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand the hours of operation so as to permit the full service restaurant to be open from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., on weekends and holidays whereas the existing use permit prohibits its operation before 5:00 p.m. daily. The proposal also includes a request to establish a valet parking service in conjunction with the full service restaurant operation. 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 -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �0� 10 �m May 21, 1987 A 9f. y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 111 INDEX 28th Street, Newport Boulevard (south- bound), 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/ - McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Stevenson, Porto & Pierce, Inc., Irvine OWNER: C & L Investments, Newport Beach. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Michael Porto, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No.- 3238 Motion on (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in x x Exhibit "A".. Absent x C James Hewicker, Planning Director, reminded the applicant that there is a 21 day appeal period, and he said that the Coastal Commission must approve the requested hours of operation. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended), MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the daytime operation of the subject full service restaurant, on weekends and holidays is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate daytime parking is available to the full service restaurant on weekends and holidays • inasmuch as a majority of the office uses on the site are closed during those times. -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES k o ° May 21, 1987 G� � NOy9C�y C9.t • ti ` `7 °��9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the subject property is sufficiently large to allow the use of valet parking without effecting the surrounding circulation system. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended) 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 the subject restaurant operation and valet parking service shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of Use Permit No. 3238 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the hours of operation for the full service restaurant shall be from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Saturday, Sunday and holidays. 4. That the use of valet parking shall in no way prohibit the opportunity for restaurant customers or other visitors to the site to self park. 5. That valets shall park cars in marked spaces only unless an alternate parking plan is approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That 6 on -site parking spaces shall be provided for the take -out restaurant between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and 20 on -site parking spaces shall be provided for the full service restaurant during the remaining permitted hours of operation. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of • this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -5- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL 11 111 INDEX B. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3257 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 UP3257 Request to approve the establishment of a facility that specializes in the sales, service and installation of automobile cellular phones on property located in the Approved M -1 -A District. The application also requests to approve three independent automobile repair businesses within the same building complex and includes a modifi- cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off- street parking. LOCATION: Lots 47 and 48, Tract No. 3201, located at 3975 and 4001 Birch Street, • on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and Quail Street, across from the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANTS: Pack -Cell, Howard Berkowitz, Cosmo's Sports Cars and David Eisenberg, Newport Beach OWNERS: Aldo and Madeleine Chiappero, Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Howard Berkowitz, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Berkowitz stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 11, requesting that the garage doors be removed and that the garages be available for the parking of automobiles at all times. Mr. Berkowitz indicated that the garage doors could remain open during the day, and the automobiles could be stored in the garages at night for security purposes. • James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that there have been problems in the past where staff has allowed garage doors to remain open elsewhere in the City, and -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES a%fG�°pvn May 21, 1987 �$9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX that the privilege has been abused by the garages being used for storage; however, if the garage doors were removed then the garages could be easily inspected. Commissioner Merrill suggested that Condition No. 11 be modified to state that wrought iron gates be provided for security purposes. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff would have no objection to said gates. Commissioner Pomeroy compared the aesthetics of the subject property to an adjacent property that had several automobiles in various stages of repair. in conclusion, he alleged that the area would be more unsightly with the garage doors left off than if the doors would be attached, and furthermore, the closed doors would also provide security. In response to Mr. Berkowitz's statement that the applicants would keep the garage doors open during the day and the garage doors locked at night, Chairman Person referred to Condition No. 16 which allows the Planning Commission to call the subject use permit back to the Planning Commission for modification, or the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council that the use permit be revoked. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Hewicker discussed Condition No. 2 which requires that all repair and service activities shall be located inside the building. Mr. Hewicker explained that the aforementioned adjacent property that Commissioner Pomeroy referred to is included in the subject site and use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that the tenants of the property must self - police, and if several tenants do not abide by the conditions of approval, then all of the tenants will be affected. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3257 subject to the findings and conditions, including a modification to Condition No. 11 which would add "that the garage doors shall remain open during business hours but the doors can be closed and locked during non - business hours for security purposes." -7- COMMISSIONERS A ? f yNG� 0�m9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed modification would not prevent the applicant from using the garage space for storage purposes. Mr. Hewicker stated that if the garage doors are open during business hours and if someone from staff would drive by and see storage, then the applicant would be in violation of the use permit. Ayes x x x x x Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3257, Absent x x including modification to Condition No. 11. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan, and are compatible with surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the proposed project is similar to other automobile service facilities that have been previously approved by the Planning Commis- sion in the vicinity of the John Wayne Airport. 2. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 3. The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That adequate off - street parking will be provided for the automobile repair facilities and the cellular phone establishment. 5. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to permit the use of compact parking will not, under the circumstances of the particu- lar case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3257 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental 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.. -8- COMMISSIONERS C`9Nt��G�( AA�Y Gt^ p9�y�.c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plans. 2. That all repair and service activities shall be located inside the buildings. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent properties as well as Birch Street. 4. No vehicle waiting for service shall be parked outside of the building for a period longer than twenty -four hours unless it is in the process of being serviced. No vehicle shall be considered to be in the process of being serviced for a period longer than one (1) week. 5. That all employees shall park on -site. 6. That no car washing shall be permitted on the site unless a wash area is provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage of wash water into the sewer system and not into the bay or the storm drains. 7. That the applicant shall make all necessary alterations to the existing structure as required by the Building Department and Fire Department so as to comply with Section 503 of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition) unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 8. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circu- lation systems shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That a minimum of 29 parking spaces shall be provided for the subject businesses which shall be used for customer and employee parking and the staging of vehicles waiting for service or repair. • -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ZA Ai^�ie�G *01 May 21, 1987 NG 9N 9��� A 9y �y� z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I 1 1111 INDEX 11. That the garage doors of the four garage spaces designated for parking purposes shall be open during business hours, but the garage doors can be closed and locked during non - business hours for security purposes. Said garages shall be available for the parking of automobiles at all times. 12. That the rear parking area shall be restriped in accordance with the approved parking plan. 13. That a maximum of 15 compact parking spaces shall be permitted. Said parking spaces shall be designated for "compact cars only ". 14. That the subject property shall be held as a single building site for the duration of this use permit. 15. That all signs shall conform to Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • 16. 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. 17. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3270 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling (Granny Unit) on property located in the R -1 -B District UP3270 in accordance with the provisions of Section 65852.1 of the California Government Code that permits a second Approved dwelling if said residence is intended for one or two persons who are 60 years of age or older. • LOCATION: Lot 17, Tract No. 1973, located at 1500 Warwick Lane, on the northeasterly corner of Warwick Lane and Marian Lane, in the Westcliff residential area. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I Jill INDEX ZONE: R -1 -B - - APPLICANTS: Christopher and Laurie Veitch, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Charles Hofmann appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Hofmann stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3270 subject Ayes x x x x x to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion Absent x x voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 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. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3270 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental 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 development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. -il- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the second dwelling unit shall be for rental purposes only and shall be limited to the use of one or two persons over the age of 60 years. 3. That the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or two adults 60 years of age or over, and committing the permittee and successors to comply with ordinances regarding Granny Units that may be adopted in the future. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to • completion of public improvements. 6. That the drive apron for the proposed three car garage have a maximum width of 25 feet at the property line, in accordance with City Driveway Approach Policy L -2. 7. That the existing tree damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Marian Lane frontage under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard 181 -L at the intersection of Warwick Lane and Marian Lane under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as ,specified in Section 20.80.090, A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • -12- COMMISSIONERS dG 9N 99'D .p q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3271 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to permit the construction of a two unit UP3271 residential condominium development with a related four car garage on property located in the R -2 area of the 8848 Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. Continued AND to June 4, B. Resubdivision No. 848 (Public Hearing) 1987 Request to resubdivide an existing lot and an abandoned. portion of 28th Street into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 128, Lake Tract, and a portion of abandoned 28th Street, located at 213 28th Street, on the northerly side of 28th Street between Newport Boulevard (southbound) and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery • Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Balboa Pacific, Newport Beach OWNER: Preston D. Will, Fullerton ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Same as applicant In response to a request by James Hewicker, Planning Director, that a representative of the applicant or property owner appear before the Planning Commission, Mr. Pete Rose, designer for the applicant approached the podium. Mr. Hewicker explained that he has been informed that Mr. Will, the alleged property owner, is not the property owner of the subject property, and that a check has been returned from the bank signed by Cloverdale Properties for insufficient funds. Mr. Rose replied that he had been informed by the applicant that the check had been taken care of; however, Mr. Hewicker stated that he had not been informed that adequate fees • have been received by the City. Mr. Rose stated that he is not aware of a conflict regarding the property owner. -13- COMMISSIONERS •` ROLL CALL Motion Ont CITY OF NEWPO BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 INDEX Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3271 and Resubdivision No. 848 to the June 4, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Van Koevering, Las Vegas, Nevada, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that he would not be available to appear before the Planning Commission until September. Mr. Van Koevering explained that he is the property owner, and that there has been a personal conflict between him and his sister regarding the subject property. Chairman Person. assured Mr. Van Koevering that no action would be taken on the subject applications until the conflict regarding title had been clarified, and Chairman Person suggested that Mr. Van Koevering contact the Planning Department. Motion voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3271 and Resubdivision No. 848 to the June 4, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. * x t Use Permit No. 3272 (Public Hearing) [Item No.6 Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis UP 3272 court lighting on property located in Area 11 of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. Said lighting Denied. will be installed on 8 - 18 foot high poles. A modi- fication to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to permit one of the poles to encroach 4 feet, 8 inches into the required S foot rear yard setback adjacent to El Capitan Drive. LOCATION: Lot 8, Tract No. 9860, located at 2 Narbonne, on the southeasterly side of Narbonne, at its southerly terminus adjacent to E1 Capitan Drive, in Harbor Ridge. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: John D. Pierce, Newport Beach • OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, .referred to the correspondence that was received by staff since the -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 �G 9N pp C A 91. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX staff report was distributed to the Planning Commis- sion. He further stated that staff has distributed Exhibit "B ", Findings for Denial in the event that the Planning Commission wanted to deny the project. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Pierce, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pierce stated that he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A "; however, he stated that the tennis court lighting will be installed on only six poles instead of eight poles as written in the staff report and shown on the plot plan. Mr. Pierce commented that the adjacent property owner east of the said property and the Harbor Ridge Architectural Committee have approved the application. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Pierce replied that the Harbor Ridge Community tennis courts are not lighted because the location of said tennis courts are bordering residential property; however, he described the uniqueness of the location of his property.and he pointed out that his tennis court lights are proposed to be lower than the existing street lights adjacent to Spyglass Hill. Mr. Pierce further replied that applications for private tennis court lights have previously been denied by the Harbor Ridge Conununity Association because the lights on said private courts in Harbor Ridge would impact many property owners. Mrs. Marilyn Fales, 77 Montecito Drive, appeared before _ the Planning Commission to state her opposition to the subject application for the following reasons: that the tennis court lights would have a detrimental impact on a residential community of view properties, and is a negative encroachment that should not be allowed; that the existing landscaping and the tennis court exterior are not aesthetically pleasing; and that the parties, public tennis lessons provided by a tennis pro, and basketball within the tennis court area have created noise pollution. Mrs. Fales stated that only E1 Capitan Drive separates the Spyglass Hill residents from the Harbor Ridge residents, and she explained that many residents in the area could lose property values if the subject application would be approved. Mrs. Fales referred a petition signed by 44 residents residing in the area stating their opposition to the subject application. -15- COMMISSIONERS ti�G �9NOF�9G�C��Bq� • �y �`fo9�9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mrs. False replied that her property is directly across E1 Capitan Drive, and the back of her property looks directly down on the subject tennis court and the park. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mrs. Pales replied that the Spyglass Hill Homeowners Association apparently had not been consulted by the Harbor Ridge Community Association. Mr. Alex Sytnyk, 55 Goleta Point Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the subject application for the following reasons: that he has witnessed many of the problems as aforementioned; that the tennis court lights would extend activities into the night; and visitors to the tennis court park their automobiles on E1 Capitan Drive and enter through the back gate instead of using the security guard system. Mr. James H. Frisbie, 79 Montecito Drive, appeared . before the Planning Commission, and he referred to the pictures of the tennis court taken from his property that he had previously distributed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Frisbie stated his opposition to the subject application because the tennis court lights would constitute an "island of brilliance" and would damage any night view from his and adjoining properties. He further stated that the applicant agreed at the Modifications Committee hearing on March 25, 1980, that there would be no lights on the tennis court and he agreed that there would be adequate landscaping to screen any visual impact on the wall /fence from E1 Capitan Drive; however, Mr. Frisbie pointed out that the applicant has not complied with the landscaping condition. Mr. Frisbie opined that staff has reduced the previous landscape requirement to only cover the wall, whereas the fence is another 10 feet on top of that wall. Mr. Hewicker stated that it was not staff's intent to dilute the condition of approval on the aforementioned Modification when the Modification was granted to construct the tennis court. He further stated that staff would follow up to make sure that the original obligations have been fulfilled. • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ��G�ooFd May 21, 1987 ( G �s �y'`�y�`�°�`9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker stated that staff will work with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the applicant to find out what has happened to the landscaping between the subject private tennis court and the park. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the deteriorated site appears to be a part of the park area that may have declined because of the construction of the tennis court, or the park may have been constructed after the tennis court was developed. Commissioner Merrill referred to the aforementioned back gate to the subject property, and he maintained. that the gate does circumvent the guarded security gate that controls visitors to Harbor Ridge. He pointed out that the said gate does not appear on the drawings for the application. Commissioner Merrill stated that if the gate was permanently locked then there would also be a stop to the commercial use of the court. Mr. Hewicker referred to the subject drawings and said that a gate is not shown on the plans which has created a breach in the security of Harbor Ridge. He stated that if the applicant is conducting commercial tennis lessons, would be a violation of the City's Zoning Code. Motion x Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3272 subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Kurlander stated that he would support the motion because the lights would affect views of the adjacent neighbors, and he commented that even if the lights are directed down, there would still be a "halo" effect. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion. She said that it appears Harbor Ridge has not allowed lights on any of the other courts because of the surrounding residential property, and the same courtesy should be shown the residents on Spyglass Hill. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion. He addressed circumstances that he had been personally involved in regarding lights that offended x x x x x the night view of Corona del Mar residents. Motion voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3272 subject to Absent x x the findings in Exhibit "B ", MOTION CARRIED. -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That because of the height of the proposed lighting standards, there will be an adverse impact on the views from adjacent residences. 2. That when the lights are on, the light and glare will effect the enjoyment of views from adjacent residences. 3. That approval of Use Permit No. 3272 will, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. : • x Use Permit No. 3005 (Amended)(Revised) (Public Hearing) Item No.7 • Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3005(A1 allowed the , establishment of an automobile rental facility on property located in the C -1 -H District. Approved The proposed amendment includes a request to expand the offices for the facility into portions of the existing commercial building located on the property; to install an automobile wash rack; and to revise the previously approved parking and circulation plans. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and a portion of Lot 4, Tract No. 1210, located at 200 West Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, in the vicinity of the Newport Bay Bridge. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANTS: Peter Martin and Anne Slemons, dba Newport Benz /Clenet Car Co., Newport _ Beach OWNER: Leonard Horwin, Beverly Hills James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that Use • Permit No. 3005 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1982. The applicant, 7 -11 Rent -A -Car was allowed to operate an automobile sales and rental facility on the subject property, and to also use the -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES p May 21, 1987 yp 9 ;�pG� p'O�m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker stated that to the best of his knowledge, when the applicants took full control of the property at 200 West Coast Highway, two trees near the highway were torn out, lights which had been installed and adjusted during the previous four years were adjusted to the extent that they disturbed some of the homeowners at the top of the bluff. Mr. Hewicker further stated that the wrought iron fence around the site, which was not a requirement of the previous use permit, was substantially reduced to increase the visibility of the automobiles that were being offered for sale on the property, but in the process of reducing the height of the fence, the applicants created a security problem. He said that the previous fence had been constructed because the 7 -11 Rent -A -Car operators had experienced problems with people damaging the automobiles. Mr. Hewicker commented that when the applicant lowered the fence it became necessary to install additional lights and to increase on -site security. Mr. Hewicker stated that in addition to removing the trees and installing and adjusting the lights, there had been three banners erected at the corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive whereas a Building Permit had been issued for only one sign. in addition, an illegal sandwich sign that was introduced onto the premises had been moved from location to location, and when the applicants were requested to remove the sign, the sign was then placed against the face of the building where it could still be visible from the street. Mr. Hewicker further explained that tags and other attention attracting devises have been placed on the automobiles despite specific direction from the Planning Commission for the staff to contact the applicant and inform them that such devices were not allowed. Mr. Hewicker also indicated that automobiles had been washed and misted on the site despite the fact staff had tried, on several occasions, to inform the applicant that this type of activity was not permitted. In addition, he said that the applicants have displayed automobiles for sale in an area that theoretically has been set aside for business invitees and employees • on -site. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff received a letter dated March 16, 1987, from one of the business partners -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 0�09.c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX first two office suites which were in the building on the lots adjoining the subject corner. Mr. Hewicker further stated that during the four year period, staff wrote letters or called 7 -11 Rent -A -Car on the telephone to inform them of various violations that were going on at the subject site. Mr. Hewicker commented that the subject applicants should not be judged by what occurred prior to the time that they took control of the subject property. Mr. Hewicker stated that on November 1, 1986, the applicants entered into a lease agreement with the property owners to take over the subject site for the Benz - Clenet automobile agency. He said that at that time the applicants received a Business License from the City, however, because of difficulties with 7 -11 Rent -A -Car, the applicants were not able to take occupancy of the site until February 19, 1987, at which time they took over partial control of the property, and 7 -11 Rent -A -Car remained on the site until March 1, 1987. In the meantime, the applicants used their . Business License at 200 West Coast Highway to continue operations from a temporary location at 410 West Coast Highway, 4 doors to the west. During this time, the applicants had moved a trailer onto the site, erected banners informing the public that they were in business, put a sandwich sign in the driveway, parked automobiles on the site with the hoods of the automobiles facing toward the street, inserted paper advertising in the license plate frames advertising the Newport Benz - Clenet agency, and operated a business that had every appearance of being a car agency operating without the benefit of a use permit. Mr. Hewicker said that in response to inquiries made by the staff, staff was advised that the applicants were not actually selling or renting automobiles from the 410 West Coast Highway location, but that the automobiles that they would be selling were actually stored in another location. He stated that the trailer was ultimately removed from the site, but efforts to remove the banners and the sandwich sign continued to exist. Mr. Hewicker advised that the applicants continued to operate at the 410 West Coast Highway location for 3 1/2 months until about the middle of February or the first part of March. -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX indicating that the applicants were willing to abide by the conditions of approval as imposed by the City. He said that he. had been told by Mr. Jerry King, representing the applicants, that around the first of March, Mr. King had delivered a copy of the conditions of approval to the applicant when the applicant took possession of the site so that staff would not have the kinds of problems that they had experienced before with 7 -11 Rent -A -Car. However, violations continued and Mr. Hewicker contacted Mr. King in the early part of April and asked him to set up a meeting with the applicants in Mr. Hewicker's office so that the applicants would have the opportunity to sit down with staff and Mr. King, and they would go over those conditions item by item. Mr. Hewicker said that meeting was held in his office on April 8, 1987, at which time the applicant was given a second set of conditions, and staff proceeded to go through the conditions of approval item by item. Mr. Hewicker stated that at the end of the meeting he was hopeful that there would be an end to the problems and that staff could move on to more • constructive things. However, on April 28, 1987, the applicants were observed washing automobiles on the site, and automobiles continued to be displayed in areas that were set aside for customer and employee parking, tags had been placed on the automobiles, automobiles were parked in the paved area in front of the fencing (Public Right -of -Way). On Monday, May 18, 1987, automobiles were parked on the grass on the corner of the property. Staff contacted the applicant, and the applicants explained that they were doing a photo session. Mr. Hewicker introduced Bill Luttrell, City Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Luttrell presented the following information to the Planning Commission: March 6, 1987 at 200 West Coast Highway, he informed Mr. Martin, applicant, that a permit was needed for one of the three banners displayed on the property. The permit was issued March 6, 1987. March 9, 1987, three banners were displayed on the property. He informed Mr. Martin one banner was permitted and to remove the other two banners. March 12, 1987, the two banners had not been removed. Staff mailed a letter to Mr. Martin requesting his cooperation in removing two of the three banners. -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Zq t��tn�G�opFp May 21, 1987 dG � 9N 999 A v� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I 1 1111 INDEX March 12, 1987, the facility was washing automobiles on -site with water runoff onto Dover Drive. March 30, 1987, two banners remained and an "A" frame sign had been put out on the curb of West Coast Highway. Mr. Luttrell requested the removal of same, and he informed Mr. Martin of the conditions of approval at his business site. In the middle of March, Mr. Martin was displaying vehicles on the grass adjacent to West Coast Highway, and the applicants were called to refrain from any display outside of the subject property site. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the applicant is asking to amend the original use permit so as to expand the display area to the west, add more office space for the sales personnel and partners with the idea of one day occupying the entire corner. He said that in staff's discussions with the applicant, staff suggested that the applicants not replace the landscaping that was allowed to deteriorate by the former holder of the use permit, or make any other substantial improvements to the site pending the public hearing. He said that staff did not want Mr. Martin to go to the expense of adding landscaping, remove paving, or doing some of the other things that the Planning Commission may wish to do with the idea that perhaps the approval would not be forthcoming. Mr. Hewicker commented that unfortunately at the time that staff told Mr. Martin to hold off, he did not anticipate that it would take so long to produce an accurate set of plans to present to the Planning Commission. Also, and unfortunately for the applicant, it has given the applicant additional time to demonstrate a hands -off management style that indicated they cannot adhere to a set of conditions or accept direction without getting into trouble with the City. Mr. Hewicker explained that in order to grant a use permit, the Planning Commission must make the ultimate affirmative finding, that the approval of the use permit under the circumstances of this case, being this use, this applicant at this location, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, • comfort, general welfare of the persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental, injurious toward property and improvements in the neighborhood, or the welfare of the City. He stated -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21 1987 jrgq� jam° Y Z F �^ Gy cq �d BG 90' 4 o0,�'c 0 9y y ��'y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX that it is the belief of staff; given the performance of the past six months, such an affirmative finding cannot be made. In addition, he pointed out that at a Study Session four weeks ago, the Planning Commission expressed some real concerns regarding what appeared to be the ability on the part of staff to enforce the conditions of approval that were being imposed by the Planning Commission and all of the Planning Commission's hard work was going for naught. He further stated that at the following City Council meeting on April 27, 1987, it was suggested by the City Council that maybe additional enforcement personnel should be hired. Mr. Hewicker advised that staff will be reporting back to the City Council before the budget is adopted as to how this can or cannot be accomplished. Mr. Hewicker stated that it is the recommendation of staff that this amendment to Use Permit No. 3005 not be approved, and furthermore that the original Use Permit be set for revocation. He further explained that in • the event it was the desire of the Planning Commission to approve this use permit as amended, staff has provided findings and conditions for approval as set forth under Exhibit "B ". The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry A. King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. King stated that the applicant was not aware that the property site chosen for the photo session was Cal -Trans property, and there has not been an indication by staff that the said site was Cal -Trans property. He said that the time of the photo session was at 10:40 a.m., and the advertisement is going into the Balboa Bay Club magazine. Mr. King stated that the plans regarding the subject site were not provided for the staff or Planning Commission for review because no previous plans were on record and the building and site had to be surveyed. Mr. King further stated that the applicants are attempting to legitimize their business with an amendment to the use permit requesting space that was previously occupied by 7 -11 Rent -A -Car for over four years, to install a wash rack that is required of all automobile agencies which necessitates the redesign of the parking lot to increase the display area, and to -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Ma 21 1987 Y r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX relocate customer and staff parking. Staff has requested that the applicant submit a revised landscape plan. Mr. King stated that the sole purpose that the applicants occupied space off -site in November, 1986, was because of legal problems in removing the 7 -11 Rent -A -Car facility from the site. Mr. King advised that the applicants had to go to court to have said facility forceably removed, and they did not leave the subject site until March 20, 1987; consequently, there were two automobile dealers occupying the site at one time. Mr. King maintained that the portable car wash unit was removed on Monday after the applicants were notified to remove same on Friday. Mr. King admitted that the applicants made mistakes relating to the banner signs and the "A" frame sign; however, the applicants did not know that they were illegal until they were notified by staff and they have corrected the situation. He said that the business owners and several of the employees drive dealer plate vehicles which carry the Newport Benz sticker on the front window, and the on -site automobiles are available for sale. In reference to the aforementioned April 8, 1987 meeting, Mr. King stated that the applicants agreed not to install a temporary sales office on the site with the provisal that the applicant be allowed to occupy the space in the building that had been occupied by 7 -11 Rent -A -Car until such time as the application was legitimized. Mr. King alleged that the applicants assumed the lease that 7 -11 Rent -A -Car had, and they have not occupied additional space since that time. Mr. King stated that he was not aware of tags in the windshields; however, he said that the Department of Motor vehicles requires that white paper stickers be in all of the windshields indicating pertinent information for used vehicles. Mr. King acknowledged that the applicants did wash automobiles over a period of time; however, they ceased car washing two weeks ago. He said that the automobiles were washed with a spray which is used throughout the City by mobile automobile washers, which is a misting system. Mr. King explained that the applicants continued to use the same area to mist the • automobiles which created the appearance of an automobile wash. In reference to the banners and "A" -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES f��� May 21, 1987 dG 9N 9�9� A Y� y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX frame, Mr. King stated that the applicants attempted to remove the "A" frame by moving said sign to the trash area; however, they are now aware that the sign will have to be removed from the site. Mr. King maintained that the violations are a carry over from 7 -11 Rent -A -Car. He said that when the subject applicants took possession of the site, they continued many of the same practices that they observed while they were sharing the site with 7 -11 Rent -A -Car. He said that the applicants were not not aware of the infractions until they received the conditions of approval, and the staff report that they were given did not preclude them from washing automobiles on -site; however, the applicants did not do so because of staff's request. Mr. King maintained that the applicants did not know there was an Ordinance addressing attracting devices, and they believed that opening a tailgate of a station wagon did not fall under that definition; however, they have agreed to discontinue that practice. Mr. King pointed out that the light standards were adjusted as soon as the applicants were advised to do so by staff, and he has successfully contacted all of the residents residing on the bluff above the subject site except for Mr. Frank Eisendrath. In reference to the petition signed by Bayshores residents, Mr. King stated that he has attempted to contact the Bayshores Homeowner's Association President; however, he has contacted many of the residents who had signed the petition, wherein he explained the temporary structure is no longer a part of the application and the automobile wash was a condition of approval only. Mr. King stated that the applicants meeting with staff has thoroughly informed them of the requirements under the findings and conditions if the application would be approved, and the applicants understand the responsibilities that would go with the approval. Mr. King stated that the landscaping plan has been completely revised. He said that the aforementioned trees that were trimmed on West Coast Highway were trimmed by the recommendation of a landscaper who advised the applicants that the trees were infested is with numerous insects. In reference to materials that were on the roof, Mr. King stated that the materials consisted of remnants from 7 -11 Rent -A -Car including -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o May 21, 1987 .6 t . �y `may CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t� vy ROLL CALL INDEX two of their old signs. In reference to the requested flag pole, Mr. King contended that the applicants are attempting to maintain a nautical theme, and that in addition to the American Flag and the State of California Flag, they have requested a "logo" flag if the Planning Commission would approve same. In reference to the Findings for Denial, Mr. King stated that the findings have more to do with 7 -11 Rent -A -Car than the current applicants. He said that the parking lot striping was never done during the entire four years that 7 -11 Rent -A -Car was there, and. when the subject applicants took possession of the site, the lot was striped illegally. He commented that the applicants were not aware until the condition of approval required the change. He said that washing of automobiles was not either permitted or denied under the existing use permit. He said that the applicants would have no difficulty providing the appropriate automobile wash area. Mr. King asked that the application be evaluated on the applicants' own set of conditions which are very thorough. The applicants are requesting a six month review to demonstrate that they can abide by the conditions and they understand the severity of the infractions in the past. Mr. King asked that the applicants not be judged by the actions of the previous occupants. Mrs. Anne Slemons, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and in response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mrs. Slemons replied that she has reviewed the staff report and that she understands the problems that have previously occurred at the subject property site. Mrs. Slemons stated that if the Planning Commission approved the application, she and Mr. Martin would agree to and abide by the findings and conditions as suggested by the City and by all of the provisions of the Municipal Code. In response to questions that were posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mrs. Slemons replied that she or Mr. Martin are always on the premises during business hours; however, she said that she has the task of running errands and has not been available when staff has been at the site. Mrs. Slemons added that she recently was hospitalized. In reference to why she and Mr. Martin have not complied with staff's requests, -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ° May 21, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Slemons replied that the applicants took full possession of the subject property on March 20, 1987, not December 1, 1986; furthermore, the applicants had to share the premises with 7 -11 Rent -A -Car until the Court had them removed from the premises wherein the banners were erected to identify them from the former occupants. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mrs. Slemons replied that the site came under the applicants care, custody and control on March 20, 1987. Mr. Hewicker commented that staff has a letter from Mr. Horwin, property owner, indicating that the applicants started to share the site on February 19, 1987, and that they took control of the premises around the first of March. Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission and explained the circumstances as follows: Under the terms of the lease, the applicants were supposed to take control of the site in December, 1986. They attempted to occupy the site on the first of March, 1987; however, 7 -11 Rent -A -Car refused to move, refused to remove the side panels from their sign, and insisted on occupying part of the office. The applicants had to litigate the issue and 7 -11 Rent -A -Car was removed from the premises by Court order, which gave the total control of the facility and its operation including the security of the site to the applicants on March 20, 1987. The applicants were temporarily operating in one of the offices on -site as well as maintaining the off -site office. The applicants used the off -site office to interview and hire staff, and to begin the purchase of the automobiles. There were competing interests on the site with competing advertising, and automobile operation. The applicants occupied the area set aside for display of automobiles, and 7 -11 Rent -A -Car parked their automobiles in the employee parking lot. In response to Chairman Person, Mr. Peter Martin, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin stated that he had read the staff report and that he understands staff's requests. Mr. Martin stated that if the Planning Commission approved the subject Use Permit, he would fully and completely comply with the findings and conditions contained in -27- COMMISSIONERS •i' A A ; �, i 0 �P9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX Exhibit "B ", and he further agreed not to violate any laws of the City's Municipal Code. Mr. Martin further stated that he would also welcome the six month review as aforementioned. Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission requesting a six month review. Mr. King commented that the surrounding neighbors will be contacted within six months so they may be given the opportunity to state their concerns. In response to a question posed by Commissioner. Koppelman if the applicants could complete the requirements in 90 days instead of 6 months, Mr. King replied that the applicants could. Mr. King stated that the landscape architects have been on -site to survey the landscape planters including the areas at the rear of the lot where the vegetation has been removed, and the contractor has been on -site to look at the requirements of restriping the lot to the designated dimensions on the site plan. Mr. King referred to a light that has been in drivers' vision while driving in the traffic lanes on Dover Drive, and stated that the light will be adjusted. Mr. King further replied that the applicants are responsible for installing the light on top of the sign; wherein he fully explained what the applicants intend to do if they would be sole occupants of the property. Chairman Person inquired if the Planning Commission can take into consideration any of the activities on -site prior to March 20, 19877 Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that only the actions of the subject applicants must be considered. The action of prior applicants as far as violations of the original use permit are not relative to this proceeding. In response to Chairman Person's question of how the City follows through with Municipal Code violations, Ms. Korade explained that a Code Enforcement Officer responds to a complaint by inspecting the site, and then if the party does not correct the violation, the party is sent a written notice by the Code Enforcement Officer. If the party does not comply with the requirements, then the Code Enforcement Officer contacts the City Attorney's office for enforcement action and the City Attorney's office sends an additional letter to set an office conference with the party involved to resolve the situation. If the situation is not resolved, then the City files a -28- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES e ; ° May 21, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX lawsuit in Court seeking an injunction in punitive damages. Chairman Person asked if violations of the Municipal Code are the basis for institution of revocation of a Conditional Use Permit? Ms. Korade referred to 20.80.090B of the Municipal Code which states "any zoning permit or use permit granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such permit are violated, or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith." Bill Luttrell reappeared before the Planning Commission, and in response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Luttrell replied that the violation of the aforementioned banners are a violation to the Municipal Code and to the original use permit wherein a condition states that the applicant must comply with the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Luttrell further replied that there is a condition in the use permit concerning the sign on the subject property. Mr. Luttrell stated that when he contacted Mr. Miller regarding the banner on March 30, 1987, Mr. Miller said that he was not aware there was a problem regarding the banners, and he removed the banners immediately. Mr. Luttrell commented that there were problems regarding the banners previous to March 30, 1987. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that staff never had problems regarding banners with 7 -11 Rent -A -Car. He said that the problem started at 410 West Coast Highway, and then when the applicants moved to the present location. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Luttrell replied that the permit that was issued for one banner sign was issued to the premises at 410 West Coast Highway, and Mr. Martin did not know that he needed a second permit for the additional address at 200 West Coast Highway. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person regarding the washing of vehicles, Mr. Luttrell replied that there is a condition in the original use permit that states that automobiles shall not be serviced on -site. Chairman Person commented that he has a concern regarding the washing of vehicles throughout the City. -29- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES tgym May 21, 1987 0 `9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Person asked if the violation regarding tailgates is a violation of the use permit or Municipal Code? Mr. Hewicker replied that he did not think it was a violation of either Code; however, an open tailgate is an obvious intent to attract attention to the automobiles which are on display. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has not previously been approached to impose this type of condition. Mr. Hewicker replied to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill that the automobiles with the tailgates open were parked on the forward part of the lot. In response to Commissioner Koppelman's question regarding flag poles, Mr. Hewicker replied that commercial businesses are allowed to erect a flag pole; however, height limits are placed on the flag poles. Mr. Hewicker explained that there are a few exceptions; however, corporate logos are generally not allowed to be flown as part of the permitted signage. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Ms. Korade explained that the original use permit was issued to the former occupants; however, the subject applicants were also required to comply with the original conditions of the use permit after they took over the operation of the business. Ms. Korade further explained that there is no waiver of the terms of conditions of any use permit by any action by a prior party or even if they had the use permit for many years and did not comply; however, that does not mean that the Planning Commission does not require current and complete compliance. Commissioner Kurlander commented that the only manner to eliminate an original use permit would be to incorporate a new use permit. In reference to the site plan that was prepared for the applicant which shows the property line and sidewalk, Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the property line illustrates the area where the private property ends and the public property begins inasmuch as there is an area that is illustrated as sidewalk and the area between back of sidewalk, and the property line that is larger in some areas as "existing planter ", and he asked Mr. King if the applicants are familiar with who that property belongs to? Mr. King replied that during the meeting with staff on April 8, 1987, the Cal -Trans -30- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �9 vy ROLL CALL INDEX property was brought to the applicants' attention in reference to the sprinkler system. In reference to Mr. Hewicker's question regarding requirements of the State Regional Water Control Board with respect to washing of automobiles and parking lot run -off, Mr. King replied that the Water Control Board does not require a permit that allows a discharge into a water course; however, if a situation would be brought to their attention that water was being discharged from a site that may end up in a water course, there would be a concern regarding the run -off. and its content. Mr.. King pointed out the following issues as possible concerns: how automobiles are washed in the City which the law may not adequately address; logo flags that are flying throughout the City; and conditions regarding open automobile hoods and tailgates. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, . the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that there are several businesses on West Coast Highway who refuse and neglect to follow through with the conditions of approval of use permits and there have been problems with Code enforcement. She said that it is an unconscionable situation wherein an applicant who has once been put on notice and the City is watching and they are only being asked to comply with the law, that they will neglect and refuse to do so. She said that it makes it difficult for the City and the Planning Commission to handle because if every single business would be as impossible as this one, there would be no time for the City staff to do anything else but for office hearings and stake -out businesses. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she is having a great deal of a problem approving the application; however, that particular site has been an automobile dealership, albeit one that has been causing problems all along. She emphasized that she hoped that the applicants have finally seen the light and have seen that the City is very serious about these conditions being met and is very serious about the applicants continuing to abide by the conditions of the original use permit that is in . effect. -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES tiA May -21, 1987 10'0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that there are many automobile dealers along West Coast Highway, and that there will be a very strict Code enforcement policy because automobile dealers do not have to be unattractive. There does not have to be a street that has flags flying, sandwich boards and ceramic dogs sitting on the sidewalk, and that it is something that is owed the citizens of the City of Newport Beach to maintain an attractive community and to not make it look like "auto dealer row ". she indicated that the dealers on West Coast Highway have expensive automobiles; however, it should not be necessary to hang banners and insert signs in windshields by virtue of the kinds of automobiles they are selling which should sell themselves. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3005 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" with the following changes: add to Condition No. 15: "If any other designs on the flags should be desired by the applicants, then said flags • shall be approved by the Planning Department. "; to modify Condition No. 19 to state "that this use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission 90 days after the effective date of this permit, and that the applicants shall be present at said meeting." Commissioner Koppelman referred to Condition No. 20, that if there is a problem within 90 days or any time thereafter, the application shall be called back to the Planning Commission, and she emphasized that the applicants will not be given the benefit of the doubt the next time. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the flag pole referred to in Condition No. 15 be eliminated. Mr. Hewicker replied that under the Zoning Code, flag poles are permitted; however, they are not to exceed the height of 50 feet. However, the subject flag pole will be controlled under the condition of the use permit. In reference to Commissioner Koppelman regarding previous violations to Use Permit No. 3005, Mr. Hewicker referred to Finding No. 3. Ms. Korade suggested the following sentence be added to said Finding: "The approval shall not constitute a waiver of the past violations at the location in the event of a subsequent revocation proceeding." Commissioner -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 �0�9 0 , d AN P9 � ,010 - t t py �` °��9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Roppelman requested that the suggested amendment to Finding No. 3 be included in the motion. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. He emphasized that if there are any further violations any time within ninety days, that he is requesting staff not to set the item for review but to set it for revocation. He said that he was sorry that the Manager of the facility is not at the public hearing; however, he hoped that the Manager clearly understands the intent of the Planning Commission. Chairman Person further stated that he was hesitant in supporting the motion; however, perhaps another chance would be warranted in view of the tenure that the applicants have been located on -site. He pointed out that regardless of the violations, the use permit or Zoning Code can both be used for revocation purposes. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion; however, he emphasized that he would not have supported the motion if it were not for the extenuating • circumstances of legal difficulties and joint ownership. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3005 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions 'in Ayes x x K Exhibit "B ", including the aforementioned amended Noes findings and conditions: Finding No. 3, Condition No. Absent x x 15 and No. 19. MOTION CARRIED. .FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 3005 will be in conjunction with conditions of approval which will clarify acceptable activities on -site and which will help to control and reduce past problems with the on -site use and user. The approval shall not constitute a waiver of the past violations at the location in the event of a • subsequent revocation proceeding. 4. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 3005 will not, under the circumstances of this -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 61C. May 21, 1987 �G9 MAO, � �9< ` ;9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, except as noted_ below. 2. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that the wash area drain shall be equipped with a grease trap unless otherwise approved by the Building Director. 3. That the automobile wash facility shall be de- signed in a manner that will prevent rain water from entering the sewer system. This will require the provision of a roofed washing area and curbing along the perimeter of a raised surface of the wash facility. The exact design shall be reviewed and approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 4. That all trash shall be stored in the trash enclosure and that all trash shall be screened from view. 5. That vehicles shall be washed only at the wash rack and that no portable wash rack shall be utilized on -site. 6. That the washing of automobiles shall be ancillary to the sales and rental operation and that only those vehicles owned by the subject sales and rental agency shall be washed on -site. 7. That no vehicles shall be displayed with open hoods, doors, trunks or tailgates. 8. That no windshield signs shall be permitted and that all signs shall conform to the requirements • of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. This condition shall not prohibit the display of information required by State laws. -34- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 21, 1987 ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX 9. That 5 foot wide landscape planters shall be provided and maintained on -site along the entire West Coast Highway frontage except at street access locations and that landscape plans shall be subject to further review by the Planning, Public Works, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Depart- -' ments. 10. That ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided for employee and customer parking and that said spaces shall be clearly marked. 11. That a white line shall be painted on the site clearly delineating the automobile display area. 12. All employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 13. That no vehicles shall be displayed within the public right -of -way along the Dover Drive and West Coast Highway frontages and that planters shall be provided at the property line across those drive- • ways not normally used for automobile access. 14. That a 24 foot backup aisle shall be provided for the customer and employee parking spaces and that the on -site vehicular circulation and parking systems be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 15. That no more than three (3) flags shall be flown on the flag pole at any given time and that said flags shall be limited to our National flag and the flags of the State of California or the City of Newport Beach. If any other designs on the flags should be desired by the applicants, then said flags shall be approved by the Planning Department. In addition said flags shall be no larger than 6 feet by 4 feet. 16. That the operation of the facility shall be restricted to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., daily. 17. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3005, as approved by • the Planning Commission November 4, 1982, shall be fulfilled prior to the implementation of this amendment, and that all previously applicable -35- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o� ;��G 00 May 21, 1987 BG 6 999 o �� y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3005 shall remain in effect. 18. That on -site lighting shall be designed so that light sources are not visible from vehicles on West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. 19. That this use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission 90 days after the effective date of this permit, and that the applicants shall be present at said meeting. 20. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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. • 21. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. t x a Modification No. 3263(Appeal)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to permit the construction of tempered glass Modifica- and masonry pool safety fences along both side property tion No. lines which will encroach 15 feet into the required 15 3263(Appeal foot front yard setback adjacent to the bay. Said fences will range in height from 5 feet to 5 feet 9 Withdrawn inches in the front yard setback area where the Munici- by the pal Code limits the height of fencing in front yard Appellant setback areas to no more than 3 feet. Said fences will also extend beyond the front property line to the existing bulkhead on County tidelands property. A tempered glass wall will also be installed to a height of 3 feet above the existing sea wall on County tide- lands property. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 182 -43 • (Resubdivision No. 748), located at 19 Harbor Island, on the southwesterly side of Harbor Island. -36- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A+J.F1 May 21, 1987 �m �yN`ej1�9� A0 0 � ;9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Richard P. Hausman, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant APPELLANT: Harbor Island Community Association, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the appellant has requested that this item be withdrawn. * w rr D I S C U S S I G N I T E M: Discussion Item Verbal report from staff in conjunction with the reco- mmendation of Councilman Sansone to delete uses requir- ing use permits in the R -3 District in Corona del Mar; Rear Yard and to increase rear yard setbacks adjacent to alleys Setbacks in all residential areas in Corona del Mar. INITIATED BY:. The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that reports have been written to the City Council for their Study Session, Tuesday, May 26, 1987, and if approved, the City Council will return same to the Planning Commission. A D J O U R N M E N T: 9:38 P.M. Adjournment * x HARRY 0. MERR ILL , SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -37-