Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/1986COMMISSIONERS Present Ix Motion Ayes in Motion All. Ayes • x X REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: June 5, 1986 City of t Beach All Planning Commissioners were present. x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney t rr x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x * � Minutes of May 22, 1986: Motion was made to approve the May 22, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. : * x Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant for Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) Tiffany's Astrological Club, has requested that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1986. Mr. Hewicker further stated that Item No. 10, Modification No. 3153, the Cano residence fence, has been withdrawn, and that the applicant will be removing portions of the wall and open wrought iron gate that exceed the permitted six foot height limit in the front yard setback. Motion was made to continue Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. s MINUTES Minutes of 5- 22 —RF, Request for Continuance x x C o °y x - a A m z c C m p m z m A z r 0 x W= z W o; O O m m> r m z z a z z y z r m Present Ix Motion Ayes in Motion All. Ayes • x X REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: June 5, 1986 City of t Beach All Planning Commissioners were present. x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney t rr x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x * � Minutes of May 22, 1986: Motion was made to approve the May 22, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. : * x Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant for Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) Tiffany's Astrological Club, has requested that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1986. Mr. Hewicker further stated that Item No. 10, Modification No. 3153, the Cano residence fence, has been withdrawn, and that the applicant will be removing portions of the wall and open wrought iron gate that exceed the permitted six foot height limit in the front yard setback. Motion was made to continue Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. s MINUTES Minutes of 5- 22 —RF, Request for Continuance June 5, 1986 Beach Use Permit No. 3184 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis court lighting on property located in the custom lot residential area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned Community. Said lighting will be installed on eight poles with a fixture height of 22 feet. LOCATION: Lot 9, Tract No. 11605, located at 1 Leesbury Court, on the 'southeasterly corner of Leesbury Court and Belcourt Drive North, in the custom lot area of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Zaino Tennis Courts, E1 Toro OWNER: Bruce Kehrli, Newport Beach X X The public hearing was opened in connection with this • n_ item, and Mr. Richard Zaino, 21962 Raintree Lane, E1 i Toro, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. z c m m W D c z 9 N z r o f Q o S 0 Z m 0 m a r m �.C�ty 01 Z a z a a m m June 5, 1986 Beach Use Permit No. 3184 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis court lighting on property located in the custom lot residential area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned Community. Said lighting will be installed on eight poles with a fixture height of 22 feet. LOCATION: Lot 9, Tract No. 11605, located at 1 Leesbury Court, on the 'southeasterly corner of Leesbury Court and Belcourt Drive North, in the custom lot area of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Zaino Tennis Courts, E1 Toro OWNER: Bruce Kehrli, Newport Beach The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I I I I 1x1 I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3184, subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. -2- MINUTES Item No.l UP3184 Approved The public hearing was opened in connection with this • item, and Mr. Richard Zaino, 21962 Raintree Lane, E1 Toro, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Zaino stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I I I I 1x1 I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3184, subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. -2- MINUTES Item No.l UP3184 Approved 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3184 will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plans. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses and streets. The plans shall be prepared and signed • by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the tennis court lighting shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. x r � A. Use Permit No. 3204 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two unit residential condominium with related .garages and carports on property located in the R -2 District. AND B. Resubdivision No. 827 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot and a portion of abandoned West Ocean Front into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes. June 5, 1986 x Xo LOCATION: Lot 2, Block N, Seashore Colony Tract _ c and and a portion of abandoned West � v Ocean Front, located at 7402 West Ocean m Z C T ,9. y m Front, on the northeasterly side of West Z c Z z n N o S o m 0 m = 0 = Olive Street, in West Newport. ( City of Newport Beach 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3184 will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plans. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses and streets. The plans shall be prepared and signed • by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the tennis court lighting shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. x r � A. Use Permit No. 3204 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two unit residential condominium with related .garages and carports on property located in the R -2 District. AND B. Resubdivision No. 827 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot and a portion of abandoned West Ocean Front into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes. -3- MINUTES Item No.2 AN LOCATION: Lot 2, Block N, Seashore Colony Tract and and a portion of abandoned West Ocean Front, located at 7402 West Ocean Front, on the northeasterly side of West • Ocean Front between Summit Street and Olive Street, in West Newport. -3- MINUTES Item No.2 AN COMMISSIONERS [zx June 5, 1986 a 0 n ,i r m y a a T City of Newport Beach c a m p; O O ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Chuck and Edward Bauer, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER: Ron Miedema, Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Schooler stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed in connection with this item. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3204 and All Ayes Resubdivision No. 827, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION • CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3204 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3204 will not, • under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, -4- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES 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. CONDTTTONR- 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That one garage space and one carport space for each dwelling unit shall be maintained for vehicular storage at all times. 3. That the ramp to the parking area shall not exceed a 15% grade and shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. • 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 827 shall be fulfilled. 5. 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. Resubdivision No. 827 FINDINGS: 1. That the.map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. June 5, 1986 X x 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed - C o improvements will not conflict with any easements = 11111111 s acquired by the public at large for access through 0 y v v or use of property within the proposed m z c m y m subdivision. z m a 0 z r ° o ° x ° M M ° > j City of Newport Beach z z s z z r m 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. CONDTTTONR- 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That one garage space and one carport space for each dwelling unit shall be maintained for vehicular storage at all times. 3. That the ramp to the parking area shall not exceed a 15% grade and shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. • 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 827 shall be fulfilled. 5. 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. Resubdivision No. 827 FINDINGS: 1. That the.map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -5- 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements 11111111 acquired by the public at large for access through 0 or use of property within the proposed subdivision. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES X x T June 5, 1.986 C o r v m 2 c m y m 2 A Z a= r m City of Newport Beach = N O; o o A 44CALLI' INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. That any encroaching improvements in the West Ocean Front right -of -way be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. • 6. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. z x x A. Use Permit No. 3206 (Public Hearing) 'tram Nn_i Request to permit the construction of a two unit UP 3206 residential condominium with related garages on pro- perty located in the R -2 District. 8828 Y\_ ,1�: B. Resubdivision No. 828 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 2, Tract No. 27, located at 3214 Clay Street, on the northeasterly side of Clay Street, between Bolsa Avenue and Westminster Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -2 ffl! COMMISSIONERS June 5, 1986 a c o s y m Fiz- a r a c m y," Z Z W p; o 0 m z 9 r m j City of Newport Beach x APPLICANT: Bradford C. Smith, Corona del Mar OWNER: Henry Schnepf, Corona del Mar ENGINEER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and because no one appeared and was heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I Ix I 11, 111 Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3206 and All Ayes Resubdivision No. 828, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3206 FINDINGS: • 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. • 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3206 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. -7- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS o i� SO SO z m z c m y m z m z x z r o x W m o � M> M Z x z a z r m Of CONDITIONS: June 5, 1986 Beach 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the required 5 foot rear yard setback shall be maintained. 3. That two garage spaces for each dwelling unit shall be maintained for vehicular storage at all times. 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 828 shall be fulfilled. 5. 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. • 11111111 Resubdivision No. 828 • FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning. Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS June 5, 198 6 T�--: _ v m z c m z c z w a; 0 0 I = p a � m City of Newport Beach _ CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That.. all. improvements. be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. • 5. That curb, gutter and sidewalk be constructed along the Clay Street frontage of the site under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That street improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 7. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That the property owner provide the City with a letter stating that they will participate in any future program the City initiates in order to complete alley improvements adjacent to the subject parcel. 10. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. IM1111111� MINUTES INDEX COM AISSIONERS • June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3207 (Public Hearing) 1Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of a 3- story, 2 -unit UP3207 residential condominium development and related garage spaces on property located in the R -4 District. The R829 proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow portions of the proposed structure Continued and balconies to encroach 16 feet into the required 20 to foot front yard setback area. 17-IA-QC AND B. Resubdivision No. 829 (Public Hearing) Request to create one parcel of land for residential condominium development where one parcel now exists. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 130 -20 ( Resubdivision No.. 590), located at 1819' -A and 1819' -B West Bay Avenue, on the southerly side of West Bay Avenue between 18th Street and 19th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -4 APPLICANT: John C. Marvick, Newport Beach OWNER: Ron Pruessing, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John C. Marvick, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marvick stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Marvick explained that when subject property was subdivided into one building site, the front yard setback was not consistent with the 3 foot front yard setbacks of Lots No. 9, 10, and 11, easterly of the site, and that the subject lot should be allowed the same setback considerations. He stated that the subject proposal is designed to be similar to the permitted adjoining 3 foot setbacks, with a 4 foot front yard setback to the second floor balcony, and a 4 foot 6 inch front yard setback on the first floor. Mr. -10- X x C o x z c m> m z W S 2 r x C Z 0 o m i T Z 9 Z 9 z T m • June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3207 (Public Hearing) 1Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of a 3- story, 2 -unit UP3207 residential condominium development and related garage spaces on property located in the R -4 District. The R829 proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow portions of the proposed structure Continued and balconies to encroach 16 feet into the required 20 to foot front yard setback area. 17-IA-QC AND B. Resubdivision No. 829 (Public Hearing) Request to create one parcel of land for residential condominium development where one parcel now exists. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 130 -20 ( Resubdivision No.. 590), located at 1819' -A and 1819' -B West Bay Avenue, on the southerly side of West Bay Avenue between 18th Street and 19th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -4 APPLICANT: John C. Marvick, Newport Beach OWNER: Ron Pruessing, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John C. Marvick, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marvick stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Marvick explained that when subject property was subdivided into one building site, the front yard setback was not consistent with the 3 foot front yard setbacks of Lots No. 9, 10, and 11, easterly of the site, and that the subject lot should be allowed the same setback considerations. He stated that the subject proposal is designed to be similar to the permitted adjoining 3 foot setbacks, with a 4 foot front yard setback to the second floor balcony, and a 4 foot 6 inch front yard setback on the first floor. Mr. -10- MINUTES June 3, 1986 Beach Marvick suggested that it would be reasonable to maintain the setbacks with a condition that in the future Lot No. 9 would he allowed to build to the 3 foot front yard setback line. Mr. Marvick opined that adjacent property owners to the east and west of the subject property made decisions to design their properties to set back their buildings; thereby, putting him in to a position that the subject building will encroach into the neighbors' sight line. Mr. Marvick displayed a model and a photograph of the subject property, and he described the sight plane of the adjacent properties. � x Mr. John Newcombe, 1821 West Bay Avenue, appeared c %0 = before the Planning Commission. Mr. Newcombe stated . C that owners of the adjacent properties to the subject W A `_ A Z r °; 0 2 ° City site have been granted approvals to develop their M m 0 o m> r m ° of 2 A = y= w m MINUTES June 3, 1986 Beach Marvick suggested that it would be reasonable to maintain the setbacks with a condition that in the future Lot No. 9 would he allowed to build to the 3 foot front yard setback line. Mr. Marvick opined that adjacent property owners to the east and west of the subject property made decisions to design their properties to set back their buildings; thereby, putting him in to a position that the subject building will encroach into the neighbors' sight line. Mr. Marvick displayed a model and a photograph of the subject property, and he described the sight plane of the adjacent properties. Dr. Richard Zahn, 1819 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Zahn stated that the existing structures that are built to a 3 foot front yard setback are older structures, and the structures adjacent to the subject site that were constructed within recent years are not within the 3 foot front yard setback. Dr. Zahn commented that all of the property owners are concerned about views, but no one wanted to monopolize the view. He said that the property owners have voluntarily developed their structures to correspond with the previously built dwellings; however, the proposed project will extend beyond the existing buildings giving the owners a panoramic view and taking away the view from the neighbors. Mr. John Newcombe, 1821 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Newcombe stated . that owners of the adjacent properties to the subject site have been granted approvals to develop their properties; therefore, the applicant should also be granted a modification to encroach into the permitted 20 foot front yard setback; however, Mr. Newcombe • commented that he has reviewed the proposed project and he is aware of what effect the project will have on the adjacent properties. He recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to allow the applicant and the neighbors additional time to come to an agreement as to how much of a building encroachment should be permitted. Dr. Richard Zahn, 1819 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Zahn stated that the existing structures that are built to a 3 foot front yard setback are older structures, and the structures adjacent to the subject site that were constructed within recent years are not within the 3 foot front yard setback. Dr. Zahn commented that all of the property owners are concerned about views, but no one wanted to monopolize the view. He said that the property owners have voluntarily developed their structures to correspond with the previously built dwellings; however, the proposed project will extend beyond the existing buildings giving the owners a panoramic view and taking away the view from the neighbors. -11- In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Dr. Zahn replied that the properties to the . east of the subject property have setbacks of 11 feet, 6 inches t, and 12 feet, 6 inches ±. Dr. Zahn pointed -11- COMMISSIONERS X x June 5, 1986 C out that the properties to the east have open balconies, and the proposed project has an enclosed balcony. Ms. Sally Power, 1821 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Power stated that she has met with the architect and the applicant of the subject property. Ms. Power said that she will lose her view, and her property will depreciate if the proposed project is developed. Mr. Anthony Lier, 1819 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lier stated that the proposed project will impair all of the neighboring views, and he recommended that the project be designed so as to allow everyone a view. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planning Commission does not have to protect private views from private o � property; however, he opined that the subject property • F A V Z 1 y r v as to provide a view for all three properties. Mr. m z c m y m z C z p= N a r O T o m I City of Newport Beach Coastal Commission does have a policy of establishing a= out that the properties to the east have open balconies, and the proposed project has an enclosed balcony. Ms. Sally Power, 1821 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Power stated that she has met with the architect and the applicant of the subject property. Ms. Power said that she will lose her view, and her property will depreciate if the proposed project is developed. Mr. Anthony Lier, 1819 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lier stated that the proposed project will impair all of the neighboring views, and he recommended that the project be designed so as to allow everyone a view. In response to an inquiry made by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Marvick reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marvick stated that he disagrees with the aforementioned suggestions made by Mr. Hewicker. Mr. Marvick rebutted that the adjacent property owners are dictating the scope and size of the project, and he questioned whether or not the Coastal Commission would have the same concerns regarding an interior lot as opposed to an ocean front lot. Mr. Marvick pointed out the progression of lots and that the street curves along West Bay Avenue. Mr. Marvick rebutted that the subject property should I Il have the same setback consideration as the lot directly east of the Site, which has a 3 foot front yard setback -12- MINUTES INDEX Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planning Commission does not have to protect private views from private property; however, he opined that the subject property • and the abutting lots to the east and to the west of the site should have been developed at the same time so as to provide a view for all three properties. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the property will require an approval from the Coastal Commission, and that the Coastal Commission does have a policy of establishing stringline setbacks between adjoining properties. He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to require that the balconies remain open and that the facades of the first, second and third floors of the proposed project be allowed to extend out no more than the first, second and third floors of the adjacent buildings. In response to an inquiry made by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Marvick reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marvick stated that he disagrees with the aforementioned suggestions made by Mr. Hewicker. Mr. Marvick rebutted that the adjacent property owners are dictating the scope and size of the project, and he questioned whether or not the Coastal Commission would have the same concerns regarding an interior lot as opposed to an ocean front lot. Mr. Marvick pointed out the progression of lots and that the street curves along West Bay Avenue. Mr. Marvick rebutted that the subject property should I Il have the same setback consideration as the lot directly east of the Site, which has a 3 foot front yard setback -12- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS F F C O � r 9 m z c m y m z m A A z r o x designated on the Districting Map, and that if the Planning Commission would rule that the subject property is the same as the adjoining lot, then he opined that he should be able to build to within that 3 foot envelope. He said that he is constructing his building back, and to build a large deck like the adjacent properties would not be desirous to the applicant. In response to Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Marvick replied that the property owner will be living on the second and. third floors of the proposed dwelling and that the lower level will be occupied as a condominium unit. Mr. Marvick described the square footage of the property if the project would be redesigned with a 20 foot front yard setback, and he said that if the project were redesigned with a 9 foot or 11 foot front yard setback, then the applicant would lose more than 200 square feet of living space. Mr. Marvick said that he would not object to an open balcony. . Commissioner Turner and Chairman Person asked if the applicant would be willing to come back to the Planning Commission at a later date after meeting with the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Marvick replied that they have previously met with the neighbors; however, maybe further compromises could be made. Commissioner Kurlander recommended that the line of sight be measured between the dwellings. Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3207 and Ayes x x x x x x Resubdivision No. 829 to the July 10, 1986, Planning Abstain x Commission Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. r, :t A. Amendment No. 635 (Public Hearing) Request to amend a portion of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards so as to delete restau- rant uses from Office Site "A ", and to permit a private club in Office Site "A ", not to exceed.30,000 sq.ft. in area, subject to the securing of a use permit, and the acceptance of an environmental document. -13- MINUTES INDEX tem No.5 ution I June 5, 1986 1= a z a z, m I City of Newport Beach designated on the Districting Map, and that if the Planning Commission would rule that the subject property is the same as the adjoining lot, then he opined that he should be able to build to within that 3 foot envelope. He said that he is constructing his building back, and to build a large deck like the adjacent properties would not be desirous to the applicant. In response to Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Marvick replied that the property owner will be living on the second and. third floors of the proposed dwelling and that the lower level will be occupied as a condominium unit. Mr. Marvick described the square footage of the property if the project would be redesigned with a 20 foot front yard setback, and he said that if the project were redesigned with a 9 foot or 11 foot front yard setback, then the applicant would lose more than 200 square feet of living space. Mr. Marvick said that he would not object to an open balcony. . Commissioner Turner and Chairman Person asked if the applicant would be willing to come back to the Planning Commission at a later date after meeting with the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Marvick replied that they have previously met with the neighbors; however, maybe further compromises could be made. Commissioner Kurlander recommended that the line of sight be measured between the dwellings. Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3207 and Ayes x x x x x x Resubdivision No. 829 to the July 10, 1986, Planning Abstain x Commission Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. r, :t A. Amendment No. 635 (Public Hearing) Request to amend a portion of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards so as to delete restau- rant uses from Office Site "A ", and to permit a private club in Office Site "A ", not to exceed.30,000 sq.ft. in area, subject to the securing of a use permit, and the acceptance of an environmental document. -13- MINUTES INDEX tem No.5 ution I 111 June 5, 1986 X Mr. Jim Chattlain, 20 Bayberry Way, Irvine, appeared C o before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Hotel • F a 9 Meridian. Mr. Chattlain stated that the Hotel Meridian z C 9 m y , is opposed to the additional dining facility because m z C z 0 p r O O 9= A= T m j City of Newport Beach AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the expansion of The Pacific Club, a private club in the Koll Center Planned Community. AND C. Use Permit No. 3208 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the expansion of The Pacific Club, a private club in the Koll Center Newport Planned Commu- nity. The proposed development includes the expansion of the dining areas and the addition of an accessory athletic facility. LOCATION: Office Site "A" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Pacific Club, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Turner stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred to page 4, of the staff report, and stated that if the additional square footage is approved, then the Pacific Club will contain a total floor area of 28,043 square feet instead of 20,943 square feet, as stated. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Terry Nemnich, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nemnich stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -14- MINUTES TS UP3208 Mr. Jim Chattlain, 20 Bayberry Way, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Hotel • Meridian. Mr. Chattlain stated that the Hotel Meridian is opposed to the additional dining facility because -14- MINUTES TS UP3208 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 5, 1986 Beach of the competition to the hotel's restaurant, banquet and meeting facilities. Mr. Chattlain explained that there is a concern that the Koll Center is currently impacted. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she has read and considered the staff report, and all of the attendant documents on the traffic study. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 635, the Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 3208, and Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Nemnich replied that the existing dining area is not over 5,000 square feet, and that the proposed 8,900 square foot addition to the building will include new dining rooms, food preparation areas, and public circulation. Chairman Person pointed out that The Pacific Club is a select operation. He further pointed out that the Planning Commission does not approve or disapprove applications based on possible competition. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. Motion Motion voted on to approve Amendment No. 635 Ayes x x x (Resolution No. 1141), the Traffic Study, Use Permit Absent x No. 3208, and the Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. I I ( I I I I 3. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. -15- A s H 9 r p T W D cs D w Z r W ;OO�City G 2 Z m a of Z T 2 a 2 i m MINUTES June 5, 1986 Beach of the competition to the hotel's restaurant, banquet and meeting facilities. Mr. Chattlain explained that there is a concern that the Koll Center is currently impacted. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she has read and considered the staff report, and all of the attendant documents on the traffic study. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 635, the Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 3208, and Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Nemnich replied that the existing dining area is not over 5,000 square feet, and that the proposed 8,900 square foot addition to the building will include new dining rooms, food preparation areas, and public circulation. Chairman Person pointed out that The Pacific Club is a select operation. He further pointed out that the Planning Commission does not approve or disapprove applications based on possible competition. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. Motion Motion voted on to approve Amendment No. 635 Ayes x x x (Resolution No. 1141), the Traffic Study, Use Permit Absent x No. 3208, and the Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. I I ( I I I I 3. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. -15- COMMISSIONERS 111 June 5, 1986 x A C o S 9 the circumstances of this case be detrimental to C 9 r v z c m Z m m z a= m O[ O O IIm a z , ( City of Newport Beach X _ m B. AMENDMENT NO. 635: Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 635. C. TRAFFIC STUDY: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour p.m, peak period on one leg of one critical intersection. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will neither cause nor make • worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary- modified', or 'primary' street. USE PERMIT NO. 3208: Findings: 1. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 2. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. -16- MINUTES 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3208 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or is the general welfare of the City. -16- MINUTES Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from MacArthur Boulevard and adjoining properties. 3. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 4. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provisions.of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 5. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circu- lation systems be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That a hydrology study of the existing retention basin (lake) be made by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the effects of the proposed grading on the capacity of said basin. The study shall be completed and approved by the Public Works Depart- ment prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 7. That the retention basin be modified in confor- mance with any recommendations of the hydrology study required in Item No. 6 in order that the basin maintain its retention capacity to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 8. That a lot line adjustment be approved if any proposed structure crosses an existing parcel line. 9. That the athletic facility be for the exclusive use of members of the Pacific Club and their guests, and not be available for use by members of the general public. • 10. That kitchen .exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke. -17- MINUTES June 5, 1986 �C F n z c a m 9 o m m z m a z 0 z z r ° = 0 ° ° i s ° 1> r j City of Newport Beach z y z z m Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from MacArthur Boulevard and adjoining properties. 3. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 4. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provisions.of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 5. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circu- lation systems be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That a hydrology study of the existing retention basin (lake) be made by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the effects of the proposed grading on the capacity of said basin. The study shall be completed and approved by the Public Works Depart- ment prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 7. That the retention basin be modified in confor- mance with any recommendations of the hydrology study required in Item No. 6 in order that the basin maintain its retention capacity to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 8. That a lot line adjustment be approved if any proposed structure crosses an existing parcel line. 9. That the athletic facility be for the exclusive use of members of the Pacific Club and their guests, and not be available for use by members of the general public. • 10. That kitchen .exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke. -17- MINUTES June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach MINUTES 11. That a washout area for the restaurant trash containers be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the bay or storm drains if required by the Build- ing Department. 12. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code if required by the Building Depart- ment.. 13. That any substantial changes in operational characteristics, as determined by the Planning Department, be subject to an amendment to this Use Permit. 14. 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. 15. 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. x x Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearin Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of the private club known as "Tiffany's Astrological Club" with on -sale alcoholic beverages and dancing. The proposed amendment includes a request to approve an off -site parking agreement so as to allow a portion of the required off - street parking to be located in the parking lot of the Lido Building located at 3355 Via Lido. The proposal also . includes a request to use tandem parking for a portion of the on -site parking spaces and the use of a full time valet parking service.. -18- INDEX 758A tinued x x '0 F 9 9 ti 9 r y m z c m m z a 9 y r 2 C z z w o 3 0 0 0 M m o m r r I Z A z a a* z m June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach MINUTES 11. That a washout area for the restaurant trash containers be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the bay or storm drains if required by the Build- ing Department. 12. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code if required by the Building Depart- ment.. 13. That any substantial changes in operational characteristics, as determined by the Planning Department, be subject to an amendment to this Use Permit. 14. 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. 15. 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. x x Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearin Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of the private club known as "Tiffany's Astrological Club" with on -sale alcoholic beverages and dancing. The proposed amendment includes a request to approve an off -site parking agreement so as to allow a portion of the required off - street parking to be located in the parking lot of the Lido Building located at 3355 Via Lido. The proposal also . includes a request to use tandem parking for a portion of the on -site parking spaces and the use of a full time valet parking service.. -18- INDEX 758A tinued COMMISSIONERS MINUTES X A T June 5, 1986 C o n e i v v m 2 C m ,q a A= a a T m City of Newport Beach C Z m p 1 O O A R CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 60 -43 (Resubdivision No. 433), (private club site) located at 3388 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido between Via Oporto and Via Malaga, adjacent to Lido Marina Village, and Lot 4, Tract No. 907 (off -site parking site), located at 3355 Via Lido in the Lido Building parking lot. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Tiffany's Astrological Club, Newport Beach OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund #12, Ltd., Marina del Rey Motion All Ayes i • Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) to the June 19, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x +e x A. Use Permit No. 3200 (Public Hearing) Request to establish a restaurant with on -sale beer and wine on property located in the SP -6 District. The proposal also includes a request: to approve an off -site parking agreement for a portion of the re- quired parking spaces; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of a valet parking service, and tandem parking spaces on said off -site parking lot located at the rear of property located on the south- westerly corner of 22nd Street and West Balboa Boule- vard. ! B. Variance No. 1130 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the installation of mechanical equipment on the roof that exceed the basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District. -19- Item No.7 TTP'37()O V1130 Approved MINUTES X _ 111 June 5, 1986 C o n C Condition No. 5 regarding "an appropriate license be Z c v m y y m > m 2 secured from the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission ", C= 0 O I O O and he discussed with James Hewicker, Planning M 2= T l City of Newport Beach z LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4, Block 23, Newport Beach Tract (restaurant site), located at 2306 West Ocean Front, and Lots 19, 20, and 21, Block 22, Newport Beach Tract (off -site parking site), located at 111, 113 and 115 22nd Street, in Central Newport. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Zeppa, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Piero Serra, Corona del Mar In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn referring to Use Permit No. 3200, Condition No. 2, regarding the availability of the off -site parking, Mr. Hewicker replied that the intent of staff was not to allow the restaurant to open to full capacity until parking is available in the off -site parking lot. • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Skaug, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Skaug referred to Commissioner Goff's aforementioned -20- Commissioner Goff referred to Use Permit No. 3200, Condition No. 5 regarding "an appropriate license be secured from the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission ", and he discussed with James Hewicker, Planning Director, and Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, if the condition should specify the type of liquor that . would be sold on the premises. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Planning Commission could make the distinction between beer and wine, or other types of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Hewicker further explained that the applicant would not be required to come back to amend the use permit if they wanted to serve other types of alcoholic beverages, unless the condition made a distinction of the type of alcoholic beverages. In response to Commissioner Goff's question if the applicant could utilize one liquor. license for the adjoining "bed and breakfast" hotel as well as the restaurant, Mr. Hewicker replied that it is the intent of the applicant to only serve wine or an apertif at the hotel, and that he did not envision that the approval of beer and wine or alcoholic beverages in the restaurant, adjoining the hotel, would allow the applicant to serve alcohol beverages in the hotel. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn referring to Use Permit No. 3200, Condition No. 2, regarding the availability of the off -site parking, Mr. Hewicker replied that the intent of staff was not to allow the restaurant to open to full capacity until parking is available in the off -site parking lot. • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Skaug, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Skaug referred to Commissioner Goff's aforementioned -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 5, 1986 Beach 110910 concern, and replied that that the "bed and breakfast" hotel is a separate operation from the proposed restaurant, and that there would be two separate liquor licenses. Mr. Skaug referred to Use Permit No. 3200, Condition No. 2, regarding the square footage of "net public area" that would be utilized before 7:00 p.m., and stated that the owner of the off -site parking lot has revised the hours when the parking lot would be available to the applicant; therefore, the applicant is requesting that the condition be amended to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 2:00 p.m. on Friday. In reference to Condition No. 9, requiring that the roof equipment shall be screened from view, Mr. Skaug commented that because of the height of the building, the roof equipment would not create a view blockage or an eyesore to the adjacent properties. Mr. Hewicker replied that the condition could be modified to state "if required by staff" because staff's intent was not to create any bulk if the equipment would not be visible from the street or adjoining properties. In reference to Condition No. 18, regarding the off -site parking agreement, Mr. Skaug referred to the staff report and said that the applicant should have to provide a minimum of 11 parking spaces as opposed to 16 parking spaces, taking into consideration the 7 parking space credit that the retail square footage of the building merits. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, replied that staff suggested 16 parking spaces; however, the applicant was proposing 18 parking spaces, including 2 parking spaces that were going to be, located on -site for employees. Mr. Laycock said that 18 parking spaces were going to be provided even though the applicant does have a credit of 7 parking spaces. Mr. Skaug replied that if the applicant should lose the parking lot in the future then the applicant would be conditioned to provide for parking spaces that would be greater than is minimally required for the restaurant. Mr. Skaug stated that the applicant may want to have "trade- offs" with the neighbors, and that 18 parking ,spaces could create a hardship on the applicant in the future. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Laycock replied that 1S parking spaces would be required for the restaurant use based on 1 parking space for each 40 square feet "net public area ", and -21- x x C o _ v > v m z c m> m z m a i s a N z z r ° ; o ° w x ° m City of s i MINUTES June 5, 1986 Beach 110910 concern, and replied that that the "bed and breakfast" hotel is a separate operation from the proposed restaurant, and that there would be two separate liquor licenses. Mr. Skaug referred to Use Permit No. 3200, Condition No. 2, regarding the square footage of "net public area" that would be utilized before 7:00 p.m., and stated that the owner of the off -site parking lot has revised the hours when the parking lot would be available to the applicant; therefore, the applicant is requesting that the condition be amended to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 2:00 p.m. on Friday. In reference to Condition No. 9, requiring that the roof equipment shall be screened from view, Mr. Skaug commented that because of the height of the building, the roof equipment would not create a view blockage or an eyesore to the adjacent properties. Mr. Hewicker replied that the condition could be modified to state "if required by staff" because staff's intent was not to create any bulk if the equipment would not be visible from the street or adjoining properties. In reference to Condition No. 18, regarding the off -site parking agreement, Mr. Skaug referred to the staff report and said that the applicant should have to provide a minimum of 11 parking spaces as opposed to 16 parking spaces, taking into consideration the 7 parking space credit that the retail square footage of the building merits. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, replied that staff suggested 16 parking spaces; however, the applicant was proposing 18 parking spaces, including 2 parking spaces that were going to be, located on -site for employees. Mr. Laycock said that 18 parking spaces were going to be provided even though the applicant does have a credit of 7 parking spaces. Mr. Skaug replied that if the applicant should lose the parking lot in the future then the applicant would be conditioned to provide for parking spaces that would be greater than is minimally required for the restaurant. Mr. Skaug stated that the applicant may want to have "trade- offs" with the neighbors, and that 18 parking ,spaces could create a hardship on the applicant in the future. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Laycock replied that 1S parking spaces would be required for the restaurant use based on 1 parking space for each 40 square feet "net public area ", and -21- with the parking credit of 7 parking spaces, only 11 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Hewicker commented that 9 parking spaces would be required, not including 2 parking spaces in the garage. Mr. Skaug replied that the 2 parking spaces in the garage be included for the daytime restaurant use, and that said parking spaces be available to hotel guests overnight. Mr. Hewicker recommended that Condition No. 18 be modified from 16 parking spaces to 11 parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Mr. Laycock regarding the off -site parking agreement commencing on September 1, 1986, Mr. Skaug replied that the applicant has allowed 13 weeks to process the required permits; however, they, will come .back with the necessary documents if the restaurant opens before September 1, 1986. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer regarding a trash area, Mr. Skaug replied • that there will be trash compactor in the building, and that there could be difficulty if there was a condition requiring a trash area outside of the building because of the limited space. He said that the applicant has not studied a trash area up to this point. The public hearing was closed at this time. Notion x Commissioner Turner made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3200, including the following amendments: to amend Condition No. 2 from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Condition No. 8 adding "If required by the Planning Director, the roof equipment shall be screened...... "; Condition No. 18 be amended guaranteeing a minimum of 11 parking spaces instead of 16 parking spaces; and Variance No. 1130, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit Commissioner Goff asked if the 6:00 p.m. as opposed to 7:00 p.m. off -site parking agreement is consistent with the requirements of the building, and if the parking lot would he needed for the tenants of the building prior to 7:00 p.m.? Mr. Hewicker replied that Mr. Skaug . previously testified that there would be a one hour overlap. Commissioner Turner opined that the intent of the motion is to include the off -site parking agreement. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. -22- MINUTES INDEX June 5, 1986 C o m z c m a m z Z Z= Z e= m 1 City of Newport Beach with the parking credit of 7 parking spaces, only 11 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Hewicker commented that 9 parking spaces would be required, not including 2 parking spaces in the garage. Mr. Skaug replied that the 2 parking spaces in the garage be included for the daytime restaurant use, and that said parking spaces be available to hotel guests overnight. Mr. Hewicker recommended that Condition No. 18 be modified from 16 parking spaces to 11 parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Mr. Laycock regarding the off -site parking agreement commencing on September 1, 1986, Mr. Skaug replied that the applicant has allowed 13 weeks to process the required permits; however, they, will come .back with the necessary documents if the restaurant opens before September 1, 1986. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer regarding a trash area, Mr. Skaug replied • that there will be trash compactor in the building, and that there could be difficulty if there was a condition requiring a trash area outside of the building because of the limited space. He said that the applicant has not studied a trash area up to this point. The public hearing was closed at this time. Notion x Commissioner Turner made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3200, including the following amendments: to amend Condition No. 2 from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Condition No. 8 adding "If required by the Planning Director, the roof equipment shall be screened...... "; Condition No. 18 be amended guaranteeing a minimum of 11 parking spaces instead of 16 parking spaces; and Variance No. 1130, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit Commissioner Goff asked if the 6:00 p.m. as opposed to 7:00 p.m. off -site parking agreement is consistent with the requirements of the building, and if the parking lot would he needed for the tenants of the building prior to 7:00 p.m.? Mr. Hewicker replied that Mr. Skaug . previously testified that there would be a one hour overlap. Commissioner Turner opined that the intent of the motion is to include the off -site parking agreement. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. -22- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS June 5, 1986 Motion voted on to including amendments 18, and Variance No. All Ayes conditions in Exhibit Use Permit No. 3200 FINDINGS: Beach approve Use Permit No. 3200 to Conditions No. 2, No. 8, No. 1130, subject to the findings and "A ". MOTION CARRIED. 1. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That the off -site lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed restaurant use. 4. That parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area, providing that the valet parking service does not utilize the adjoining streets or alleys. 5. That a leasehold of the off -site parking lot is of adequate duration to serve the restaurant use. 6. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and utilities, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. . 7 x 7. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning c o F Code so as to permit tandem parking spaces and a 0 9 v m parking attendant at the off -site parking lot will y 2 W 9 9 m 0 Z M City 0 m> I of = a z s= w m June 5, 1986 Motion voted on to including amendments 18, and Variance No. All Ayes conditions in Exhibit Use Permit No. 3200 FINDINGS: Beach approve Use Permit No. 3200 to Conditions No. 2, No. 8, No. 1130, subject to the findings and "A ". MOTION CARRIED. 1. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That the off -site lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed restaurant use. 4. That parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area, providing that the valet parking service does not utilize the adjoining streets or alleys. 5. That a leasehold of the off -site parking lot is of adequate duration to serve the restaurant use. 6. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and utilities, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. . MINUTES INDEX 7. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit tandem parking spaces and a parking attendant at the off -site parking lot will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be 'detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. .S. The approval of Use Permit No. 3200 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, -23- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS T June 51 1986 X X C o w v = v r v m z c m o m z a z W, p r 0 o 1 z a z a M m I City of Newport Beach z 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 may be noted below. 2. That only the front portion of the restaurant facility, consisting of 350 sq.ft. of "net public area ", shall be used for dining or waiting purposes .before 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and before 2:00 p.m. on Friday. 3. That the hours of operation shall be restricted to the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight daily. 4. That the service of .alcoholic beverages shall be for the patrons of the restaurant only and shall be incidental to the serving of meals. 5. That the appropriate license be secured from the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission for the on -site consumption of alcoholic beverages. 6. That a washout area for trash containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or the storm drains. 7. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code. 8. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. No trash shall be stored in the street or alley. 9. If required by the Planning Director, the roof • equipment shall be screened from view in such a manner that is architecturally compatible with the -24- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 5, 1986 t Beach INDEX remodeled structure. The Planning Department shall approve the screening prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 11. That no dancing or live entertainment shall be permitted in the restaurant facility, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, and utilities shall be waived. 13. That the project shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and all local amendments. . 14. That two parking spaces shall be provided for restaurant employees' vehicles in the on -site garage (Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 826) during all hours of operation. The remaining restaurant employees shall park their vehicles on the off -site parking lot after 7:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; after 2:00 p.m. on Friday, and on weekends. 15. That the off -site parking lot shall be manned by a parking attendant at all times during the hours of its use. 16. That no valet parking service on the public rights -of -way shall be offered to restaurant patrons.. 17. That a sign or map shall be displayed on the front of the restaurant, facility that indicates to restaurant patrons the location and the permitted hours of the off -site parking lot. 18. That an off -site parking agreement be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum of 11 parking spaces shall be provided on property located on Lots 19, 20, and 21, Block 22, Newport Beach Tract (111, 113, and 115 22nd Street) for the duration of the restaurant use. -25- x7 - co F x � 'o �v m z c m m z m a x N Z r ° ; o ° x ° M m O ' r City of 2 A= M Z 9 2 T m MINUTES June 5, 1986 t Beach INDEX remodeled structure. The Planning Department shall approve the screening prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 11. That no dancing or live entertainment shall be permitted in the restaurant facility, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, and utilities shall be waived. 13. That the project shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and all local amendments. . 14. That two parking spaces shall be provided for restaurant employees' vehicles in the on -site garage (Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 826) during all hours of operation. The remaining restaurant employees shall park their vehicles on the off -site parking lot after 7:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; after 2:00 p.m. on Friday, and on weekends. 15. That the off -site parking lot shall be manned by a parking attendant at all times during the hours of its use. 16. That no valet parking service on the public rights -of -way shall be offered to restaurant patrons.. 17. That a sign or map shall be displayed on the front of the restaurant, facility that indicates to restaurant patrons the location and the permitted hours of the off -site parking lot. 18. That an off -site parking agreement be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum of 11 parking spaces shall be provided on property located on Lots 19, 20, and 21, Block 22, Newport Beach Tract (111, 113, and 115 22nd Street) for the duration of the restaurant use. -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES X June 5, 1986 c o x z c m y m z 9 z A= T m City of Newport Beach c z N a i. 0 0 9 AR CALL INDEX 19. Should the off -site parking agreement lease be terminated for any reason, the "net public area" of the restaurant facility shall be reduced to 350 sq.ft. immediately, unless the Planning Commission and City Council approve another off -site parking agreement prior to the termination of said lease. 20. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 826 shall be fulfilled. 21. 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. 22. 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. VARIANCE No. 1130 FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the existing building with its flat roof currently exceeds the height limit. The proposed heating, ventilating, air conditioning unit and hood exhaust are necessary for the establishment of the restaurant which is a permit- ted use in their district. 2. That the granting of this variance to allow specific mechanical equipment on the roof is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant in that no other reasonable alternative exists. • 3. That the granting of this variance request will not under the circumstances of this particular -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach 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, in that no views will be impacted, and only a small portion of the equip- ment will be visible. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved elevation except as noted below. 2. That the roof equipment shall be screened from view in such a manner that is architecturally compatible with the remodeled structure. The Planning Department shall approve the screening prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. * * x Use Permit No. 3205 (Public Hearing) Request to establish a restaurant with on -sale beer and wine on the Fun Zone property in the C -1 District, and to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 82 -706 (Resubdivision No. 724), located at 600 Edgewater Place, bounded by East Bay Avenue, Washington Street, Palm Street, and Newport Bay, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Milano's Pizza Restaurant Balboa, Inc., Newport Beach. 0 11111111 OWNER: Balboa Fun Zone, Ltd., Newport Beach -27- INDEX Item No.8 UP3205 Continued to June 19, 1986 x c o 0 a x v � m z c m> m z as x zr c� x c 2 W p; O O :om o ms r w 2 a = A= T m MINUTES June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach 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, in that no views will be impacted, and only a small portion of the equip- ment will be visible. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved elevation except as noted below. 2. That the roof equipment shall be screened from view in such a manner that is architecturally compatible with the remodeled structure. The Planning Department shall approve the screening prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. * * x Use Permit No. 3205 (Public Hearing) Request to establish a restaurant with on -sale beer and wine on the Fun Zone property in the C -1 District, and to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 82 -706 (Resubdivision No. 724), located at 600 Edgewater Place, bounded by East Bay Avenue, Washington Street, Palm Street, and Newport Bay, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Milano's Pizza Restaurant Balboa, Inc., Newport Beach. 0 11111111 OWNER: Balboa Fun Zone, Ltd., Newport Beach -27- INDEX Item No.8 UP3205 Continued to June 19, 1986 James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that it has not taken long for the Planning Commission to consider use 'permits which could change the characteristics of the various food establishments in the Fun Zone which the City has worked long and hard to try to establish. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Hewicker, confirmed that there are no other establishments on the Fun Zone site that have beer and wine licenses. June 5, 1986, F The public hearing opened in connection with this item, - c o and Mr. Jack Burthe, 2000 Kewamee Drive, appeared = before the Planning Commission. Mr. Burthe stated that z c m i m the applicant also has a pizza business in Ventura a M= M N o ;ooi r to the patrons in Newport Beach by stating that the m City Y of Newport p Beach a s a Newport Beach patrons do not order as many pizzas, but James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that it has not taken long for the Planning Commission to consider use 'permits which could change the characteristics of the various food establishments in the Fun Zone which the City has worked long and hard to try to establish. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Hewicker, confirmed that there are no other establishments on the Fun Zone site that have beer and wine licenses. Commissioner Winburn asked Mr. Burthe if at the time that he leased the subject site from the landlord he knew that the restaurant was to be a take -out restaurant as opposed to a full service restaurant requiring parking, and if there are currently the same number of tables compared to when he opened the restaurant. Mr. Burthe replied that he does not know what a full service restaurant is, and that the restaurant has remained unchanged. Chairman Person asked if at the time Mr. Burthe negotiated his lease if he reviewed the use permit which is on file with the City, and did he understand the terms of the use permit and conditions imposed that a full service restaurant was prohibited by the conditions imposed on the project? Mr. Burthe replied that he had read the conditions; however, he is of the opinion that the operation does not fit the definition -28- MINUTES INDEX The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jack Burthe, 2000 Kewamee Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Burthe stated that the applicant also has a pizza business in Ventura County, and he compared the patrons in Ventura County to the patrons in Newport Beach by stating that the Newport Beach patrons do not order as many pizzas, but they do order more pasta dinners therefore, the order • for the large pizza oven was cancelled. He explained how the restaurant started out to be a typical fast food restaurant, but that now they are considered a full -scale service restaurant that requires additional parking spaces because they have four waiters who take orders at the table, and they are applying to sell wine with the pasta. Mr. Burthe asked that they be permitted to serve beer and wine, to keep the four waiters, and that additional parking not be required because the facility is not a full service restaurant. Commissioner Winburn asked Mr. Burthe if at the time that he leased the subject site from the landlord he knew that the restaurant was to be a take -out restaurant as opposed to a full service restaurant requiring parking, and if there are currently the same number of tables compared to when he opened the restaurant. Mr. Burthe replied that he does not know what a full service restaurant is, and that the restaurant has remained unchanged. Chairman Person asked if at the time Mr. Burthe negotiated his lease if he reviewed the use permit which is on file with the City, and did he understand the terms of the use permit and conditions imposed that a full service restaurant was prohibited by the conditions imposed on the project? Mr. Burthe replied that he had read the conditions; however, he is of the opinion that the operation does not fit the definition -28- MINUTES INDEX June 5, 1986 Beach of a full scale restaurant. Chairman Person pointed out that there are different requirements under the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach which define take -out restaurants as opposed to full service restaurants. Commissioner Eichenhofer pointed out that the applicant's floor plan denotes stools along the counter that look out at the carousel and includes 53 seats; however, she said that she was in the restaurant and she counted 16 tables of 4 seats, 3 tables of 2 seats, and 9 stools, which adds up to 79 seats. Mr. Burthe replied that those plans were the plans that were originally submitted to the City, and at that point Mr. Burthe described how the seating area had to be redesigned. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked staff the definition of "incidental seating ". Mr. Hewicker replied that staff's interpretation of incidental seating is that • less than 50 percent of the customers would enter an establishment for the purpose to sit down and consume food on the premises. Mr. Laycock replied that the definition of a take -out restaurant is " the delivery of such food products or beverages within a building in such a manner that the majority of the customers would move such food products or beverages from the building for consumption ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Burthe replied that he was not aware that he 'would be required to provide parking spaces for his restaurant until he applied for a use permit application to serve beer and wine. 7c z C O ° x Commissioner Goff regarding what the applicant would z c m y A z W ` z D m S 0O O a r ; m> x 0 ° r M City of z a z a z M m June 5, 1986 Beach of a full scale restaurant. Chairman Person pointed out that there are different requirements under the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach which define take -out restaurants as opposed to full service restaurants. Commissioner Eichenhofer pointed out that the applicant's floor plan denotes stools along the counter that look out at the carousel and includes 53 seats; however, she said that she was in the restaurant and she counted 16 tables of 4 seats, 3 tables of 2 seats, and 9 stools, which adds up to 79 seats. Mr. Burthe replied that those plans were the plans that were originally submitted to the City, and at that point Mr. Burthe described how the seating area had to be redesigned. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked staff the definition of "incidental seating ". Mr. Hewicker replied that staff's interpretation of incidental seating is that • less than 50 percent of the customers would enter an establishment for the purpose to sit down and consume food on the premises. Mr. Laycock replied that the definition of a take -out restaurant is " the delivery of such food products or beverages within a building in such a manner that the majority of the customers would move such food products or beverages from the building for consumption ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Burthe replied that he was not aware that he 'would be required to provide parking spaces for his restaurant until he applied for a use permit application to serve beer and wine. _29- MINUTES IF910 In response to concerns and questions posed by Commissioner Goff regarding what the applicant would have to do to conform to Exhibit "A" of the use permit which allows for the sale of beer and wine on the premises, Mr. Hewicker replied that in order not to have a full sit -down operation, the applicant would have to have a counter -type operation where patrons would come into the restaurant, order food at the counter, wait to have their food prepared, and remove the food from the premises; or an area where the food would be served in containers through a window and where the sit -down patrons would be less than 50 percent of the operation, which is a typical take -out operation. _29- MINUTES IF910 Mr. Hewicker questioned how the applicant concluded that the Newport Beach patrons do not eat pizza when the applicant did not purchase or install the pizza ovens. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding when the application was filed, Mr. Laycock replied that the application was filed on May 9, 1986. Mr. Hewicker advised that the application first came to his attention when the City Manager contacted him regarding what a person would have to go through in order to allow for service of alcoholic beverages in a restaurant in the Fun Zone, and Mr. Hewicker's response was to amend the use permit, and it was at that time it was noticed that the restaurant operation differed substantially from the original application. June 5, 1986 x x _ c o n restaurant clientele from a sit -down operation, by C > v m explaining that a sit -down dinner type of operation z c a m o m z becomes a destination point as opposed to a patron who • c z w o s O o is already in the area and stops by to consume the food on or off the premises. He said that the parking M m I City of Newport Beach requirement for a take -out restaurant is based upon the Mr. Hewicker questioned how the applicant concluded that the Newport Beach patrons do not eat pizza when the applicant did not purchase or install the pizza ovens. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding when the application was filed, Mr. Laycock replied that the application was filed on May 9, 1986. Mr. Hewicker advised that the application first came to his attention when the City Manager contacted him regarding what a person would have to go through in order to allow for service of alcoholic beverages in a restaurant in the Fun Zone, and Mr. Hewicker's response was to amend the use permit, and it was at that time it was noticed that the restaurant operation differed substantially from the original application. Ms. Korade explained that when the current application was filed, the restaurant had been opened for two or three weeks. She commented that the applicant would have had to conform to the layout of the original use permit, and now the testimony has indicated there is additional seating. Mr. Hewicker explained that the problem with the original use permit is that at the time the use permit was granted, there was an overall amount of a square footage of take -out restaurants that the City knew was going to go into the Fun Zone, but there were no specific floor plans for the individual restaurant operations. Commissioner Goff referred to Condition No. 5, Exhibit "B ", requiring the applicant to provide 11 parking • spaces on an off -site location, and if the Planning Commission approved Exhibit "B ", what would happen if the applicant could not find the 11 parking spaces, -30- MINUTES INDEX Mr. Hewicker described the difference in the take -out restaurant clientele from a sit -down operation, by explaining that a sit -down dinner type of operation becomes a destination point as opposed to a patron who • is already in the area and stops by to consume the food on or off the premises. He said that the parking requirement for a take -out restaurant is based upon the maximum number of employees on duty during peak hours of operation and on the gross square footage of the take -out restaurant, as opposed to a sit -down operation which is based upon the "net public area" of the restaurant. Ms. Korade explained that when the current application was filed, the restaurant had been opened for two or three weeks. She commented that the applicant would have had to conform to the layout of the original use permit, and now the testimony has indicated there is additional seating. Mr. Hewicker explained that the problem with the original use permit is that at the time the use permit was granted, there was an overall amount of a square footage of take -out restaurants that the City knew was going to go into the Fun Zone, but there were no specific floor plans for the individual restaurant operations. Commissioner Goff referred to Condition No. 5, Exhibit "B ", requiring the applicant to provide 11 parking • spaces on an off -site location, and if the Planning Commission approved Exhibit "B ", what would happen if the applicant could not find the 11 parking spaces, -30- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS X x C o � x F' -a v 9 a m z c m a m = m a a Z r o x MINUTES INDEX would Exhibit "A" apply? Ms. Korade replied that in order to exercise the rights granted, the applicant would have to meet all of the conditions of approval. Mr. Hewicker replied that 11 parking spaces are going to be extremely difficult to find, and he described pending use permits and previous use permits in which the applications have had difficulty in finding parking spaces. He pointed out that the Fun Zone developers provided for 57 parking spaces in the subterranean parking structure, and now there is an application that may be intensifying a use in the Fun Zone in terms of its parking. Chairman Person asked in reference to the original use permit, the number of allowable take -out food services, the number of take -out restaurants actually built, and the number of take -out restaurants that were actually approved. Mr. Hewicker replied that he does not have the numbers readily available for all of the spaces rented or constructed. June 51 1986 regarding how many parking spaces the applicant is allowed in the garage, Mr. Burthe replied that he was assigned 5 parking spaces but that he was supposed to have 12 parking spaces. Discussion followed regarding the formulas that are followed regarding the the number of required parking spaces for the gross floor area of 9 Z A= T m j City of Newport Beach formula for a take -out restaurant other than at the Fun Zone is 1 parking space for each 50 square feet of INDEX would Exhibit "A" apply? Ms. Korade replied that in order to exercise the rights granted, the applicant would have to meet all of the conditions of approval. Mr. Hewicker replied that 11 parking spaces are going to be extremely difficult to find, and he described pending use permits and previous use permits in which the applications have had difficulty in finding parking spaces. He pointed out that the Fun Zone developers provided for 57 parking spaces in the subterranean parking structure, and now there is an application that may be intensifying a use in the Fun Zone in terms of its parking. Chairman Person asked in reference to the original use permit, the number of allowable take -out food services, the number of take -out restaurants actually built, and the number of take -out restaurants that were actually approved. Mr. Hewicker replied that he does not have the numbers readily available for all of the spaces rented or constructed. In rebuttal to questions that were posed previously by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Burthe referred to his letter dated May 28, 1986, and he further replied that the restaurant is operating two pizza ovens, but that the large pizza oven that was originally ordered was not necessary so they cancelled the order. He explained • that it was the original intent of the restaurant to have the customers come up to the counter the first week that they were open; however, the crowds were such -31- In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding how many parking spaces the applicant is allowed in the garage, Mr. Burthe replied that he was assigned 5 parking spaces but that he was supposed to have 12 parking spaces. Discussion followed regarding the formulas that are followed regarding the the number of required parking spaces for the gross floor area of take -out restaurants. Mr. Hewicker explained that the formula for a take -out restaurant other than at the Fun Zone is 1 parking space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area plus 1 parking space for each employee on duty during peak hours of operation. He. explained that when the use permit was originally approved, staff tried to determine what the historical use had been in the Fun Zone. and then allocated those parking spaces among the new square footage that was being developed, so that every use that goes in is recognized to have some nonconforming status. In rebuttal to questions that were posed previously by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Burthe referred to his letter dated May 28, 1986, and he further replied that the restaurant is operating two pizza ovens, but that the large pizza oven that was originally ordered was not necessary so they cancelled the order. He explained • that it was the original intent of the restaurant to have the customers come up to the counter the first week that they were open; however, the crowds were such -31- COMPv\ISSIONERS MINUTES A x 111 June 5, 1986 C o 0 F v M a = r a IM m - z c m a m = a= N o a O O A = a = r m City of Newport Beach =RCALL-1 11 1 111 1 INDEX that it was easier to have the waiters take sit -down . orders. In response to Chairman Person, Mr. Burthe replied that during the first week of operation they did not have waiters but that there were employees taking the orders and bringing the food out to the tables, and that many customers wanted to sit down and have dinner. Mr. Burthe further commented that during peak hours there are 12 employees, and during the week there are 2 waiters in front. He opined that if there would not be waiters in front there would be the same amount of employees but behind the counter, and the customers would come up to the counter to order their dinner, and then the food could be taken to the customers similar to the manner it is done at other fast food restaurants as opposed to take -out restaurants. He opined that they were never told they were a take -out restaurant as opposed to a fast food operation. Chairman Person pointed out that the site plan • indicated take -out use, and that Condition No. 58 of Use Permit No. 3120 stipulates that an amendment to the use permit shall be required for: "b" "any conversion of a take -out restaurant to a conventional restaurant as defined in the Zoning Code ", and Chairman Person further stated that any individual entering into such an investment should have read what that condition meant and what the Zoning Code said as to the definition of a take -out restaurant. Commissioner Winburn opined that the restaurant does not have the appearance of a take -out restaurant, but instead a restaurant wherein the customers would enter, sit down, and have their meals served. In further response to Mr. Hewicker's questions, Mr. Burthe replied that the majority of the patrons are local and most of them walk to the restaurant, and he emphasized that the restaurant does not attract people to the site. Chairman Person and Mr. Burthe discussed the intensification of the Balboa area. Commissioner Kurlander commented that the restaurant would have a 7 parking space deficiency if the restaurant had been assigned 12 parking spaces and they • only have 5 parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Burthe replied that the public is parking in the parking structure, and that the secret code into the parking structure is -32- COMMISSIONERS June 5, 1986 Beach MINUTES INDEX continuously leaked. Chairman Person commented that a tow truck cannot get into the parking structure to tow . illegal automobiles. The public hearing was closed at this time. s C c O = f y had difficulty complying with the City's definition of y v m z c m 1 m z Oo S a z r O 2 o T take -out restaurant does not have numerous tables with M m O m> j city of Z a z p z T m June 5, 1986 Beach MINUTES INDEX continuously leaked. Chairman Person commented that a tow truck cannot get into the parking structure to tow . illegal automobiles. The public hearing was closed at this time. Discussion followed whether the item should be continued for two weeks or four weeks. Commissioner Eichenhofer opined that the applicant has had difficulty complying with the City's definition of take -out restaurant, and she pointed out that a take -out restaurant does not have numerous tables with Motion tablecloths. .Commissioner Eichenhofer made a motion to x continue this item for four weeks to enable the applicant to work with staff in order for staff to explain to the applicant what the requirements are for a take -out restaurant, and then the Planning Commission may reconsider the application. She further stated that the City has worked hard to limit the uses in the Fun Zone, the small amount of parking available on -site was for employee parking, and the restaurant does not come under the guidelines of what was intended. Commissioner Turner stated that he would support the motion, and that he would like to take a second look at the application. He opined that the restaurant has • unintentionally not been in compliance with the use that was intended, but that is what has occurred. Discussion followed whether the item should be continued for two weeks or four weeks. -33- Chairman Person stated that the Conditions of Approval are public record, and those conditions define under what circumstances a conventional restaurant may operate, and that is after obtaining a new use permit. He further stated that the restaurant has operated as a conventional restaurant, and in violation of the use permit that exists on the premises. Chairman Person opined that the restaurant may not have been violating intentionally, but that they did know they were not complying with the use permit that existed. He said that many Balboa citizens have worked hard to come up with projects to benefit the area. He questioned what the additional two or four weeks would do, and he said that he was unsure if he would support Exhibit "A ", allowing the applicant to sell beer and wine on the premises. Chairman Person emphasized that the applicant should comply with the use permit that exists • on the premises. -33- Commissioner Koppelman explained how the Planning Commission spent many hours working to make certain that the parking and take -out restaurants were formulated so that there would be a specific idea of what was going to happen on the property. She questioned if staff should mediate before there is a decision, and that she has no objection to the sale of beer and wine on the premises. She questioned what the staff can do within a two to four week period, so she Substitute made a substitute motion to approve the findings and Motion conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A ". She stated her concerns regarding the intensification of use in the area. June 5, 1986 x x _ o = in knowing how much floor area was approved for i y C v take -out restaurants in the Fun Zone, and how much z c 9 m m m z floor area now exists for take -out restaurants. M Wz N o; o of Commissioner Turner pointed out that for those reasons z m m City Y of Newport p Beach he supports the continuation of this item. Chairman a� Commissioner Koppelman explained how the Planning Commission spent many hours working to make certain that the parking and take -out restaurants were formulated so that there would be a specific idea of what was going to happen on the property. She questioned if staff should mediate before there is a decision, and that she has no objection to the sale of beer and wine on the premises. She questioned what the staff can do within a two to four week period, so she Substitute made a substitute motion to approve the findings and Motion conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A ". She stated her concerns regarding the intensification of use in the area. Commissioner Person advised that he would be discussing the original Fun Zone use permit with the Planning Commission under "Additional Business ". Motion voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3205 to the Ayes x x Ix x x Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1986. MOTION Noes, x CARRIED. • -34- MINUTES Chairman Person commented that he would be interested in knowing how much floor area was approved for take -out restaurants in the Fun Zone, and how much floor area now exists for take -out restaurants. Commissioner Turner pointed out that for those reasons he supports the continuation of this item. Chairman Person stated that the requested information could be brought back to the Planning Commission in two weeks. Commissioner Eichenhofer amended her motion that Use Aire nded Permit No. 3205 be continued to the Planning Commission Motion meeting of June 19, 1986. Commissioner Goff requested that the continuation of the use permit be voted before the substitute motion to approve Exhibit "A". Commissioner Koppelman withdrew the substitute motion. Commissioner Goff advised that he would support the motion to continue the item for two weeks, and he suggested that staff comment further as to what the expectation of square footage or quantity of take -out restaurants were that led to the existing parking requirements. Commissioner Person advised that he would be discussing the original Fun Zone use permit with the Planning Commission under "Additional Business ". Motion voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3205 to the Ayes x x Ix x x Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1986. MOTION Noes, x CARRIED. • -34- MINUTES June 5, 1986 Beach Variance No. 1131 (Public Hearing) Request to enclose a ground floor open area on an existing 3 story duplex in the R -2 District. The existing legal, nonconforming structure exceeds the permitted 2 times the buildable area of the site, and the proposed enclosure will further increase the buildable area on the property. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 60, Ocean Front Tract, located at 6001 Seashore Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Seashore Drive and 60th Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Mark D. Van Slyke, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • x x Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, recommended an alternative to Condition No. 3, Exhibit "C ", and c o � a v Condition No. 5, Exhibit "B ", in the staff report as m y v r v follows: "No further improvements shall be allowed or z c m a m = m o T A M m s I city of 2 9 = 9 Z m m June 5, 1986 Beach Variance No. 1131 (Public Hearing) Request to enclose a ground floor open area on an existing 3 story duplex in the R -2 District. The existing legal, nonconforming structure exceeds the permitted 2 times the buildable area of the site, and the proposed enclosure will further increase the buildable area on the property. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 60, Ocean Front Tract, located at 6001 Seashore Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Seashore Drive and 60th Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Mark D. Van Slyke, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, recommended an alternative to Condition No. 3, Exhibit "C ", and Condition No. 5, Exhibit "B ", in the staff report as follows: "No further improvements shall be allowed or constructed within the public right of way of West Ocean Front. The granting of this variance shall not be deemed to affect the right to maintain existing improvements in the public right of way nor shall it be deemed to grant any vested rights in the maintenance of the improvements ". Ms. Korade stated that the purpose of the alternative condition is that the existing condition requests removal of structures which encroach into the unimproved right of way of West Ocean Front. She pointed out that the existing improvements or existing buildings in said right of way will be addressed by the City Council, and the City Council has requested that the various encroachments not be allowed or required to be removed prior to their policy determination. She explained that "no further improvements shall be allowed" will limit the improvements to the existing improvements or "grandfathers" them in until the City Council makes a determination. "The granting of this variance shall not be deemed to affect the right to maintain existing improvements in the.public right of way" means that the granting of this variance will not give the applicant any greater right than anyone else to maintain the existing improvements in the public right of way. Ms. -35- MINUTES Item No.9 V1131 Approved MINUTES June 5, 1986 Beach Korade explained that the alternative condition has been discussed with the applicant, and the applicant has indicated that he agrees with said alternative condition. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Hugh Coffin, 2122 North Broadway, Santa Ana, appeared before the Planning Commission to represent the applicant. Mr. Coffin reviewed the history of the property and the application, and he explained that the property was purchased by the applicant during a transition period of development standards set by the City. Mr. Coffin emphasized that the applicant is requesting to enclose the area so that the patio will be weather tight, and will keep out an undesirable element. He stated that the applicant will not add an additional dwelling to the duplex. In response to the staff's recommendations, Mr. Coffin replied that wrought iron gates to enclose the open area would be unacceptable from an architectural standpoint because the gates would not fit in with the building. In reference to the staff's recommendation suggesting an internal stairway between the ground floor and the second floor, he said that the plan would not work from a design standpoint. Mr. Coffin pointed out the deterioration of the site, and the concerns that were addressed by the numerous letters that have been received in support of the Variance from the adjacent neighbors and. the West Newport Beach Association. Mr. Coffin presented a notebook that indicates the appearance of the structure as it existed in 1977 and as the structure exists today. In response to the findings necessary to grant a Variance, Mr. Coffin replied that (1) Hardship: "bad decision made by the prior owner lead to the problem of deterioration, and the area cannot be policed ". (2) Exceptional Circumstances: "this property was caught during a transition, a bad decision was made, and the owner was left with a residual problem. Probably the only structure where similar circumstances could exist. The structure is essentially and totally unique ". (3) The Variance would be necessary to preserve valuable property rights: "it is apparent that it is -36- JC F 70, = f y a 9 y m Z c m > m Z m x a Z r O 2 xm O m > 'n oIcilt} y O/t' Z 9 Z p= '" m I MINUTES June 5, 1986 Beach Korade explained that the alternative condition has been discussed with the applicant, and the applicant has indicated that he agrees with said alternative condition. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Hugh Coffin, 2122 North Broadway, Santa Ana, appeared before the Planning Commission to represent the applicant. Mr. Coffin reviewed the history of the property and the application, and he explained that the property was purchased by the applicant during a transition period of development standards set by the City. Mr. Coffin emphasized that the applicant is requesting to enclose the area so that the patio will be weather tight, and will keep out an undesirable element. He stated that the applicant will not add an additional dwelling to the duplex. In response to the staff's recommendations, Mr. Coffin replied that wrought iron gates to enclose the open area would be unacceptable from an architectural standpoint because the gates would not fit in with the building. In reference to the staff's recommendation suggesting an internal stairway between the ground floor and the second floor, he said that the plan would not work from a design standpoint. Mr. Coffin pointed out the deterioration of the site, and the concerns that were addressed by the numerous letters that have been received in support of the Variance from the adjacent neighbors and. the West Newport Beach Association. Mr. Coffin presented a notebook that indicates the appearance of the structure as it existed in 1977 and as the structure exists today. In response to the findings necessary to grant a Variance, Mr. Coffin replied that (1) Hardship: "bad decision made by the prior owner lead to the problem of deterioration, and the area cannot be policed ". (2) Exceptional Circumstances: "this property was caught during a transition, a bad decision was made, and the owner was left with a residual problem. Probably the only structure where similar circumstances could exist. The structure is essentially and totally unique ". (3) The Variance would be necessary to preserve valuable property rights: "it is apparent that it is -36- MINUTES INDEX self- evident at granting the Variance and allowing the applicant to enclose the lower area, will definitely preserve a property right that is rapidly deteriorating ". (4) Determination that the Variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood: "the neighborhood fully supports the application and the West Newport Beach Association clearly supports the application ". Mr. Coffin emphatically stated that the Variance will not, nor cannot, create any adverse precedence because there is not a similar property anywhere in the west Newport area. Mr. Coffin asked that the Planning Commission approve the application based on Exhibit "C" which would approve the enclosure of the patio as requested by the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff regarding the proposed bathroom, Dr. Mark Van Slyke, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Van Slyke stated that the bathroom would be is desirable; but he would accept the deletion of the bathroom. Commissioner Kurlander suggested that a half bath would be convenient, and that a covenant would bind the applicant to two dwelling units. Mr. Coffin presented to staff, letters of approval from Messrs. Wolfe, Jr., Gayner, Schumann, Spratt, Kessler, Newman, Abrams, and the West Newport Beach Association. Mr. Frank Kessler, next door neighbor to the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kessler stated that he fully supports the application, and he asked the Planning Commission to approve the application. Mr. Jerry Tremble, next door neighbor to the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tremble stated his support of the application, and he pointed out the existing deterioration of the property. Mr. Tom Orlando, West Newport Beach Association, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated their support of the application, in accordance with Exhibit "C ", including the amended Condition No. 3. • Mr. Orlando explained that by approving the application the area would be getting rid of an "unattractive nuisance ". The public hearing was closed at this time. -37- June 5, 1986 X x L C o O m Z c m y m Z C 2 m p; o o T 9 City of Newport Beach M j Z INDEX self- evident at granting the Variance and allowing the applicant to enclose the lower area, will definitely preserve a property right that is rapidly deteriorating ". (4) Determination that the Variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood: "the neighborhood fully supports the application and the West Newport Beach Association clearly supports the application ". Mr. Coffin emphatically stated that the Variance will not, nor cannot, create any adverse precedence because there is not a similar property anywhere in the west Newport area. Mr. Coffin asked that the Planning Commission approve the application based on Exhibit "C" which would approve the enclosure of the patio as requested by the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff regarding the proposed bathroom, Dr. Mark Van Slyke, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Van Slyke stated that the bathroom would be is desirable; but he would accept the deletion of the bathroom. Commissioner Kurlander suggested that a half bath would be convenient, and that a covenant would bind the applicant to two dwelling units. Mr. Coffin presented to staff, letters of approval from Messrs. Wolfe, Jr., Gayner, Schumann, Spratt, Kessler, Newman, Abrams, and the West Newport Beach Association. Mr. Frank Kessler, next door neighbor to the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kessler stated that he fully supports the application, and he asked the Planning Commission to approve the application. Mr. Jerry Tremble, next door neighbor to the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tremble stated his support of the application, and he pointed out the existing deterioration of the property. Mr. Tom Orlando, West Newport Beach Association, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated their support of the application, in accordance with Exhibit "C ", including the amended Condition No. 3. • Mr. Orlando explained that by approving the application the area would be getting rid of an "unattractive nuisance ". The public hearing was closed at this time. -37- COMMISSIONERS June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach Motion x Commissioner Goff made a motion to approve Variance No. 1131, in accordance with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "C" including amended Condition No. 3. In reference to Commissioner Kurlander's aforementioned remarks regarding a bathroom, Commissioner Goff stated that he would approve a bathroom based on the required covenant binding the applicant to two dwelling units. Chairman Person referred to Condition No. 4, and he commented that he was not concerned that Dr. Van Slyke would convert the patio area into a third dwelling unit, but that he was concerned that a future owner could convert the area to generate additional income. Chairman Person recommended that the bathroom as suggested by Commissioner Goff could be limited to a half bath. Commissioner Goff accepted the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion after seeing the evidence that has been • occurring and that she would like to have the condition rectified. Mr. Hewicker advised that the structure has a shower head outside of the building. Mr. Hewicker suggested that "that as long as the property is developed in excess of 2 times the buildable area of the site ", should be deleted from Condition No. 4 because it is not applicable to the covenant. Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1131, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "C ", including Alternative Condition No. 3 as recommended by the City Attorney, amended Condition No. 4, and added Condition No. 7 to approve only a water closet and wash All Ayes basin within the enclosed patio area. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property is developed with an open patio which is accessible from the public • beach and which presents a serious security problem for the site because of unauthorized entry by the general public. -38- MINUTES INDEX x x c o � r 9 z c m s m z W s a ZX C z N p; 0 O O M M O m> r r Z z 9 z a z r m June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach Motion x Commissioner Goff made a motion to approve Variance No. 1131, in accordance with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "C" including amended Condition No. 3. In reference to Commissioner Kurlander's aforementioned remarks regarding a bathroom, Commissioner Goff stated that he would approve a bathroom based on the required covenant binding the applicant to two dwelling units. Chairman Person referred to Condition No. 4, and he commented that he was not concerned that Dr. Van Slyke would convert the patio area into a third dwelling unit, but that he was concerned that a future owner could convert the area to generate additional income. Chairman Person recommended that the bathroom as suggested by Commissioner Goff could be limited to a half bath. Commissioner Goff accepted the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion after seeing the evidence that has been • occurring and that she would like to have the condition rectified. Mr. Hewicker advised that the structure has a shower head outside of the building. Mr. Hewicker suggested that "that as long as the property is developed in excess of 2 times the buildable area of the site ", should be deleted from Condition No. 4 because it is not applicable to the covenant. Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1131, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "C ", including Alternative Condition No. 3 as recommended by the City Attorney, amended Condition No. 4, and added Condition No. 7 to approve only a water closet and wash All Ayes basin within the enclosed patio area. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property is developed with an open patio which is accessible from the public • beach and which presents a serious security problem for the site because of unauthorized entry by the general public. -38- MINUTES INDEX • June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach 2. That the granting of a variance to further exceed the permitted gross floor area of the property by enclosing the ground floor patio is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as said enclosure will provide the necessary security for the ground floor area and will allow the reason- able use of a portion of the building which is currently unused and in a deteriorated condition, and that said enclosure will not increase the size and bulk of the structure. 3. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Pro- gram, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the proposed enclosure of the ground floor patio is supported by a 'majority of the property owners in the immediate vicinity of the property and by the West Newport Beach Community Asso- ciation. 5. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building at the proposed floor area will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That the gross floor area of the structure shall not exceed 5,363± sq.ft. (2.63 x buildable area). 3. No further improvements shall be allowed or constructed within the public right of way of West Ocean Front. The granting of this variance shall not be deemed to affect the right to maintain existing improvements in the public right of way nor shall it be deemed to grant any vested rights in the maintenance of the improvements. -39- MINUTES INDEX x x n v = y 9 i z c m m W D A y r 0 X _= W O; 0 D O� i z a s a a m June 5, 1986 of Newport Beach 2. That the granting of a variance to further exceed the permitted gross floor area of the property by enclosing the ground floor patio is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as said enclosure will provide the necessary security for the ground floor area and will allow the reason- able use of a portion of the building which is currently unused and in a deteriorated condition, and that said enclosure will not increase the size and bulk of the structure. 3. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Pro- gram, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the proposed enclosure of the ground floor patio is supported by a 'majority of the property owners in the immediate vicinity of the property and by the West Newport Beach Community Asso- ciation. 5. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building at the proposed floor area will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That the gross floor area of the structure shall not exceed 5,363± sq.ft. (2.63 x buildable area). 3. No further improvements shall be allowed or constructed within the public right of way of West Ocean Front. The granting of this variance shall not be deemed to affect the right to maintain existing improvements in the public right of way nor shall it be deemed to grant any vested rights in the maintenance of the improvements. -39- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES x x June 5, 1986 c o � _ a p y IM x m 2 z c m y m c z w o r o M z p= T z o m City of Newport Beach a R CALL INDEX 4. The applicant shall record a covenant, of which the form and content is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest in perpetuity, to.limit the number of dwelling units on the property to two units. 5. That the applicant shall obtain building permits for all proposed construction as well as for the as built enclosure of the three carport parking spaces. 6. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. That the bathroom located in the- area to be enclosed shall consist of a water closet and a wash basin. • 11111111 Modification No. 3153 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the retention of an as built 7 foot ± high wall with up to 7.81 foot high pilasters in the required 20 foot front yard setback. Two of. the pilasters are topped by 3 foot is high light fixtures, resulting in a total height of 10.2± feet. An open wrought iron gate ranging in height from 6.5± feet to 7.8± feet is also included. Planned Community District Regulations for the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community limit walls and fences within front yard setbacks to 6 feet in height. LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4, Tract No. 11450, located at 45 Belcourt Drive North, on the easterly corner of Belcourt Drive North and Huntington Court in the detached residential area of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Larry J. Cano, Newport Beach • I I I I I I I OWNER. Same as applicant APPELLANT: Same as applicant -40- Item No.10 3153 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 5, 1986 x � c o n 9 9 m f ti v r v 2 C m y M Z C 2 N O r. O O M = A = T m City of Newport Beach I11 .y LL INDEX The applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn inasmuch as those portions of the subject wall and open wrought iron gate that exceed the permitted 6 foot height limit in the front yard setback will be removed as required by the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Standards. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: In response to a question from Chairman Planning Director Hewicker indicated that the started to prepare the development standards proposed Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. Additional Business Person, staff has Central for the Balboa SAP The Commission discussed the problems with the improvements on Washington Street adjacent to the Fun • Zone, and the status of the bike racks that were to be Washington installed by the developers of the Fun Zone property. Street' City Engineer Webb will report back to the Commission in conjunction with this matter. Chairman Person referred to Item No. 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1139 (GPA 85 -1(B) for Newport Center) pertaining to the criteria which would have to be met prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four lanes on MacArthur .Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. Chairman Person referred to Mr. Webb's statement of May 22, 1986, regarding the MacArthur Boulevard widening between the prolongation of Crown Drive and the Coast Highway intersection and recommended that the language contained in Resolution No. 1139 be clarified and the intent of the Planning Commission be explained without physically changing the Resolution. Mr. Webb confirmed that he had discussed this matter with Chairman Person and that the clarification Chairman Person had in mind was the same language that • he had used in his statement to the Planning Commission on May 22, 1986. -41- Resolution No. 1139 COMMISSIONERS June 5, 1986 Beach Discussion followed between Planning Commissioners regarding the need for the clarification and the desire to eliminate any confusion which might arise. Following discussion by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hewicker stated that it was his understanding from the foregoing that the intent of the Planning Commission was to express the fact that "the City would not be precluded from constructing intersection improvements at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard and at MacArthur Boulevard and 'San Miguel Drive, said intersection improvements having been described in the EIR for GPA 85 -1(B). It is further understood that said intersection improvements may result in 6 lanes on MacArthur Boulevard in the areas adjacent to said intersections with a tapering to 4 lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Harbor View Drive and between the prolongation of the center line of Crown Drive and San Miguel Drive." • Mr. Hewicker further stated that if this language reflects the intent of the Planning Commission then it will be forwarded to the City Council along with the original action taken by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1986. Ms. Korade advised that the Planning Commission's clarification to the City Council could be forwarded as an attached memo, or by staff in the staff report to City Council, but that the Planning Commission could not prescribe the wording. In response to Commissioner Goff, Ms. Korade replied that the Planning Commission can convey the intent but that it .would be inappropriate to suggest amended language to the Resolution or to amend the Resolution. Motion xx x Chairman Person made a motion to direct staff to C o F forward the concerns of the Planning Commission to City y m Council concerning language of Item No. 5 "Other a c m y m z m a C S N z r °; 0 ° x °(City v m o m s r r of a s z a z m June 5, 1986 Beach Discussion followed between Planning Commissioners regarding the need for the clarification and the desire to eliminate any confusion which might arise. Following discussion by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hewicker stated that it was his understanding from the foregoing that the intent of the Planning Commission was to express the fact that "the City would not be precluded from constructing intersection improvements at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard and at MacArthur Boulevard and 'San Miguel Drive, said intersection improvements having been described in the EIR for GPA 85 -1(B). It is further understood that said intersection improvements may result in 6 lanes on MacArthur Boulevard in the areas adjacent to said intersections with a tapering to 4 lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Harbor View Drive and between the prolongation of the center line of Crown Drive and San Miguel Drive." • Mr. Hewicker further stated that if this language reflects the intent of the Planning Commission then it will be forwarded to the City Council along with the original action taken by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1986. Ms. Korade advised that the Planning Commission's clarification to the City Council could be forwarded as an attached memo, or by staff in the staff report to City Council, but that the Planning Commission could not prescribe the wording. In response to Commissioner Goff, Ms. Korade replied that the Planning Commission can convey the intent but that it .would be inappropriate to suggest amended language to the Resolution or to amend the Resolution. Motion x Chairman Person made a motion to direct staff to forward the concerns of the Planning Commission to City Council concerning language of Item No. 5 "Other Requirements ", Resolution No. 1139, and that concern be indicated in the language, prepared in the staff report going to the City Council, and that as a possible alternative to language which is contained in the Resolution, the staff attach the language signifying the intent of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker repeated Chairman Person's request by stating that the Planning Commission has asked staff to convey to the City Council what the intent of the -42- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS x z T v y m C > z i W Z G) zm °mi