Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/08/1989COMMISSIONERS o, o01 9 9 N �G�y9��y�(f �ooyo REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Edwards arrived at 7:37 p.m.) EX- OFFICIO OFFICER PRESENT:' Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Javier Garcia, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of May 18, 1989: Minutes of on * Motion was made and voted on to approve the May 18, 1989, 5 -18 -89 * * * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. ent Public Comments: Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comments non- agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of i the Agenda William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 2, 1989, in front of City Hall. Reauest for Continuances: Request for Mr. Laycock stated that the applicant, Hoag Memorial Continuance Hospital, Presbyterian, has requested that Item No. 1, Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended), be continued to the July 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, so as to consider other • locations for the proposed employee child care facility. He further stated that the applicants, Arthur Leeser and Robert Feiss, have requested that Variance No. 1152, regarding property located at 2310 First Avenue, be continued to the June 22, 1989, Planning Commission COMMISSIONERS Z��c���'N�s's+ T 9 a10 y f C�oNyo dh I- June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROM CALL INDEX meeting, so as to allow additional time to prepare revised plans as suggested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Persdn requested that Variance No. 1152, Item No. 6, be continued to the July 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting after considering the June 22, 1989, agenda. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 1 and .All Ayes No. 6 to the July 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1421A permitted the expansion of the existing Hoag Hospital facility on property located in the A -P -H District. The Continued proposed amendment includes: a request to establish an to employee child care facility to be located in prefabricated 7_6_89 modular buildings adjacent to Newport Boulevard; the • construction of an addition to the administrative offices, some of which will be located in prefabricated modular buildings; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Record of Survey 15 -30, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONE: A -P -H APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, i Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant William L.aycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the July 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to provide additional time to consider other locations for the proposed employee child care facility. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the All Ayes July 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. -2- COMMISSIONERS Gam\-Pollffir P01O . June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 1579 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1579A permitted the establishment of the Jim Slemons Imports automobile sales and service facility, on property located Approved in the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed amendment involves a request to revise the design of a previously approved four level automobile storage building so as to add an additional fifth level to the structure for automobile storage. LOCATION: Lot 4, Tract No. 7694 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 87 -50 (Resubdivision No. 531) located at 1001 Quail Street, on the southwesterly corner of Quail Street and Dove Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Jim Slemons Investments, Newport Beach • OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. H. Randy Jacobson, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, to state that he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Merrill suggested that Condition No. 5 be modified to state "City Traffic Engineer" instead of "Traffic Engineer." There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. [lotion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1579 (Amended), subject to the findings and conditions in All Ayes. Exhibit "A", including modified Condition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS• 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 1579 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations except as noted below. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1579 as approved by the Planning Commission on February 3, 1972, and as amended December 15, 1977, November 19, 1987 and February 18, 1988 shall remain in effect. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That the final layout of the parking structure shall meet the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the parking structure shall only be used for customer and employee parking and storage of automobiles to be sold at the facility 7. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -4- COMMISSIONERS ymG�y ��oyPCC9� om� June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX 8. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 1922 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1922A permitted the establishment of a boat repair and maintenance facility on property located in the Approved "Recreational and Marine Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to obtain the approval of a professional office use in the "Recreational Marine Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposal also includes: a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a new employee and customer parking area to be located at 226 21st Street; and the • review of the operation of an existing boat crane which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit up to a maximum height of 45 feet in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 79 -732 (Resubdivision No. 644), located at 223 21st Street, on the northwesterly side of 21st Street between The Arcade and Newport Bay, and Lots 14 through 17, Block 220, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 226 21st Street, on the southeasterly side of 21st Street, between The Arcade and Newport Bay, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Peninsula Shipyard, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Norman C. Schmitt, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Norm Schmitt, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schmitt stated that he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including . Condition No. 13, regarding the hours of operation in conjunction with loud or unusual noise or sound. -5- COMMISSIONERS S mG�y o�iQ June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1922 Motion (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit All Ayes "A ", including added Condition No. 13. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the design of the development 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 development. 3. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate any problems from the proposed operation. 4. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the proposed professional office use is a permitted use in the District in which it is located inasmuch such use is to be conducted in conjunction with a marine repair facility which occupies all of the subject property. 6. That the establishment of a professional office as an ancillary use and the operation of a 45 foot high boat crane in conjunction with the existing boat repair operation will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification to allow the use of tandem parking spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 7. The off -site parking area is located so as to be useful to the subject boat repair operation and related uses. -6- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R O L E CALL 1 1 I J i l l I I INDEX 8. The parking within the off -site parking area will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 9. That the off -site parking area located at 226 21st Street is owned by the applicant and shall be available for the employees and visitors of the boat repair business located at 223 21st Street for the duration of said use. 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, except as noted below. 2. That all trash areas shall be screened from view from 21st Street, The Arcade and adjoining properties. 3. That all employees who drive cars to work shall park their vehicles in the off - street parking areas located at 226 21st Street. 4. There shall be a minimum of 8 off - street parking spaces provided on the property at 226 21st Street, two of which shall be independently accessible and shall be available at all times for visitor or customer parking. Said parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 5. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That the sidewalk along the 21st Street frontage be reconstructed along with the construction of a drive apron at the parking lot entrance and removal of the pipe and concrete in the gutter on the northeasterly side of 21st Street. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department within 90 days of the approval of the subject use permit. • 8. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain building permits prior to the -7- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX completion of the public improvements. 9. That the applicant shall obtain the City's approval of a permit to operate the existing outdoor paging system in accordance with Chapter 10.32 of the t Municipal Code. 10. That the property owner shall record a covenant, the form and content of which shall be approved by the City Attorney, holding the property used for off -site parking (226 21st Street) in common ownership with the property containing the offices for the subject boat repair facility (223 21st Street) for the duration of said use. 11. That the subject boat crane shall not be used to launch or remove boats to and from the bay and into the public right -of -way of 21st Street, 12. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or • recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. Shipyard activities outside the following hours shall be limited to work that emits a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property lines: between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday; between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; and between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and holidays. The public hearing opened for Use Permit No. 3076 and Use Item No-4 Permit No. 3122 (Amended), following Item No. 5 inasmuch as the applicants were not present at this time. • -8- COMMISSIONERS " .o ; o, q� do 9y LNO� CC�7o June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3352 (Public Hearing)_ Item No.5 Request to permit the establishment of a take -out UP3352 restaurant with incidental seating specializing in the sale of Mexican food, pastries, yogurt, coffee and related food Approved items on property located in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off- street parking. The proposed hours of operation are from 5:00 a.m, to 11:00 p.m. daily. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 137 -39 (Resubdivision No. 606), located at 2744 East Coast Highway, on the easterly side of East Coast Highway, between Goldenrod Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Alex Lovers, Newport Beach OWNER: I Said Shokrian, Corona del Mar William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to page 5 of the staff report, and he requested that the statement "Should alternate Condition No. 4 be approved, then Condition No. 12 would not be necessary and should be deleted. ", be modified to state "Condition No. 15" instead of "Condition No. 12 ". He explained that if the Planning Commission approved revised Condition No. 4, the hours of operation between 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily as requested by the applicant, to 7:00 a.m. and midnight daily as suggested by staff, then Condition No. 15 requiring all monitoring of traffic between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. could be deleted. Mr. Laycock stated that the Police Department has expressed concern with respect to the traffic congestion at the Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway intersection. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Laycock replied that the Police Department is concerned with the traffic in general at that intersection. He explained that it is not known if the accidents that have occured at the subject intersection during the past 2 1/2 years are the result of the existing take -out restaurants in the area or because it is a busy intersection. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, • and Mr. Alex Lovers appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he concurred with the findings -9- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 s�G�y�f�yNOy�`c�o� o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Lovera replied that his preference would be that the restaurant's operating hours would be from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily; however, he would comply with whatever hours that the Planning Commission approves for the restaurant. Mr. Lovera submitted a petition that was signed by patrons in support of the proposed restaurant. He further replied that inasmuch as two tenants in the building, on specific days, remain open until 6:00 p.m., and only the nail salon opens prior to 9:00 a.m., that the parking lot would be totally available to the restaurant in the evenings after 6:00 p.m. and in the early morning hours. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Lovera stated that the parking lot would be patrolled so as to allow parking for only the building's tenants and patrons; that he would be moving the restaurant into a separate building; that the employee that works the counter also delivers the take -out food; and that no table service • will be provided, that the utensils are disposable, and the intent is to serve seltzer, yogurt, and gourmet coffee in addition to the regular menu. Mr. Lovera commented that the number of seats is not a major concern; however, the seats would be available for the customers who are waiting for the take -out food and for the walk -in patrons. He estimated that 108 to 158 of the customers would remain on the premises. Mr. Lovera indicated that the floor area is 1,240 square feet and not 1,500 square feet as previously stated. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the use permit at the existing location of Mucho Munchies has the possibility of remaining for the sale of take -out food. He asked if it is not possible if the subject application would be approved, and inasmuch as Mr. Lovera is the holder of the use permit at that location, that Mr. Lovers. be requested to surrender the existing use permit as a condition of approval of this use permit? Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the use permit goes with the land and not the owner. She explained that there is no provision in the Zoning Code to request an individual to withdraw or submit the surrender of a use permit in return for obtaining another use permit, and there is no provision that limits the number of take -out restaurants unless by a Specific Area Plan. Ms. Korade stated that the Planning • Commission could deny the current use permit if the Planning Commission could make a finding that too many -10- COMMISSIONERS o o ;�" �- 0 June 8, 1989 F F Z�G���y�oy9'v�gti,� s o : 0100 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX parking spaces are being waived at the subject location inasmuch as the application requests a waiver of parking spaces. Commissioner Pers6n suggested a provision in the Zoning Code that would allow the applicant to surrender a use permit upon the request of the Planning Commission. Ms. Korade explained that the applicant could voluntarily surrender the use permit; however, she said there could not be any type of condition of approval on a new use permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Ms. Korade replied that the applicant could voluntarily surrender the existing use permit; however, the request could not be made a condition of approval to a subsequent use permit. Commissioner Merrill asked what the property owner's right would be in the use permit? Ms. Korade explained that it would be presumed that the person who voluntarily surrenders the use permit would be the person to whom the use permit vests, i.e.: if the use permit is in the property owner's name, the property owner would have to take action; however, the existing use permit is in Mr. Lovera's name. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Ms. Korade explained that a Specific Area Plan considers the allowable uses in a specific area, can encourage or discourage uses, or eliminate uses based upon findings that certain uses would be detrimental to the area. Mr. Lee Parker, designer, appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss with Mr. Lovers, and Chairman Pomeroy the square footage of the subject site. Mr. Lovers. stated that the property owner advised him that the square footage was 1,500 square feet; however, Mr. Parker said that he measured the area at 1,236 square feet. Mr. Laycock stated that staff measured the gross floor area at 1,532 square feet based on the drawings that were submitted by the applicant. Mr. Louvers stated that the square footage of Mucho Munchies at the present location is 650 square feet. Commissioner Debay addressed the applicant's requested number of tables and chairs, the available parking spaces that would be available during the day, and the traffic congestion at the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway. She asked if the applicant would modify his request to 6 tables and 10 seats? Mr. Lovera agreed to comply with the conditions as approved by the Planning Commission inasmuch as the seating is incidental. • Commissioner Debay complimented Mr. Lovers. on his successful restaurant operation, and she addressed the -11- COMMISSIONERS o m0 ;� -off June 8, 1989 ymG 9o9y9.p9y� 9y o�y ff4sC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX number of customers who support his business. She pointed out that the existing location does not provide parking, . and because the proposed restaurant would provide parking that she would be supportive of the proposed restaurant. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Lovera explained that his options at the existing site are to sell the business to a party that wants to sell sandwiches, or he would continue to operate a business at that location, or he could surrender his use permit. He explained that there are four years remaining on his lease, and it would be a financial hardship if he surrendered the existing use permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards in reference to Condition No. 15 with respect to monitoring the traffic, Mr. Laycock explained that inasmuch as the parking lot would be used only by the proposed take -out restaurant prior to 7:00 a.m. the intent would be to install panic hardware on the front door of the restaurant from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. to force the customers to enter through a rear entrance adjacent to the on -site parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the block consisting of the existing Mucho Munchies, Gelato Classico, and the proposed restaurant, Mr. Laycock replied that there are six lots to the north of the subject property and two lots south, adjacent to Goldenrod Avenue that could be potential restaurant sites in the future. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy with respect to the completion of Pelican Hills Road and the affect the road would have on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that it has not been determined what affect Pelican Hills Road would have at the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway. Mr. Webb stated that the completion date for Pelican Hills Road is proposed to be in the Spring, 1991. Mr. Lovers, and Commissioner Di Sano discussed the proposed restaurant's volume of business inasmuch as the square footage will 'double the size of the existing Mucho Munchies. Mr. Lovers. concluded that the applicants intend to provide the customers who are currently patronizing the take -out restaurant, a more efficient service and available • parking. -12- COMMISSIONERS �mG F 9�' �Pi9? 9y pX June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that if the proposed take- out restaurant would be required to purchase parking spaces, it would be in accordance with conditions that were placed on other commercial establishments in the area. He commented that there is no parking adjacent to the site on Goldenrod Avenue. Mr. Nichols stated that the City is "racheting" restaurant operating hours in Corona del Mar. He further addressed the building/parking ratio as it was considered in the revised General Plan, and he explained that when the subject building was constructed the parking ratio was based on retail /office uses and not a restaurant use. Mr. Nichols stated that he was advised that the Specific Area Plan was not processed because Corona del Mar was built -out and there would not be problems in the future, and he addressed the fast food facilities that violate the parking requirements. He indicated that there are areas in Corona del Mar that are better suited for take -out restaurants. Ms. Jerry Hawkins, proprietor of Class Act, a woman's clothing store adjacent to the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the subject application. She stated that her customers support the take -out restaurant, that many of the customers are walk - ins, that parking is available in the parking lot and she would be willing to concede her parking to the take -out restaurant, and that it would be a safer area with more activity. Mr. Michael Cohen, 612 Goldenrod Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the take -out restaurant. He stated that he was not aware of any parking problems, that the majority of the restaurant's business is when the adjacent businesses are closed, that the restaurant is good for the community, and that he was not aware of any odors emitting from the restaurant. Mr. Jim Hayton, an employee at the Mucho Munchies restaurant in Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed facility. He stated that the restaurant is an asset to Corona del Mar, that it is a good quality facility, and Mr. Lovers. is a good employer. Mr. Steve Cray, 4515 Dorchester Road, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the convenient Mexican • take -out restaurant. -13- . COMMISSIONERS F � ymc�y�9�oy9C`�o� o�� June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3352 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Condition No. 4 and deletion of Condition No. 15 as previously stated. Commissioner Di Sano stated that the existing take -out restaurant is in a good location, there were no objections to the current take -out restaurant operation when it was recently reviewed by the Planning Commission; with the same amount of business in the proposed facility as the existing Mucho Munchies, six parking spaces would be provided that have not been available; that although he has a concern with respect to a string of take -out restaurants in the same block, if the applicant does not volunteer to surrender the existing use permit that cannot be conditioned by the Planning Commission, the over - abundance of the take -out restaurants could be considered when the Specific Area Plan is drafted. In conclusion, Commissioner Di Sano stated that the applicant should be given the opportunity to operate the take -out restaurant at the proposed site. Discussion ensued between Chairman Pomeroy, Commissioner Debay and Commissioner DiSano with respect to the number of tables and seats requested by the applicant. Chairman Pomeroy amended the motion to modify Condition No. 3 to permit a maximum of 6 tables and 12 seats. The maker of the motion concurred with the amended motion. Commissioner Person stated that the applicant has been a good restaurant operator. He addressed the existing take- out restaurant use in the existing location, and the additional use at the proposed location in conjunction with another take -out restaurant in the immediate area. Commissioner Person expressed his concern with respect to the Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway intersection. In response to a clarification for Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Di Sano explained that inasmuch as the restaurant's operating hour would commence at 7:00 a.m. instead of 5:00 a.m. it would not be necessary to monitor the traffic in the area. Commissioner Winburn expressed her concern with respect to the parking in the area, the dog grooming operation adjacent to the site, and the potential three take -out restaurants. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would -14- COMMISSIONERS °�F �• q� June 8, 1989 yd�L99 yy� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX vote to deny the application. She pointed out that the applicant would be able to continue to operate at the existing location. Commissioner Merrill addressed his concerns as follows: the parking spaces that would be available to the patrons who would remain at the restaurant and not take the food off of the premises, the 12:00 midnight closing, the Police Department did not support the waiver of parking spaces, and the additional use would add traffic congestion at that location. In response to Commissioner Debay, Mr. Laycock explained that because the use permit goes with the land, any new tenant at the existing location of Mucho Munchies would have to comply with the conditions of approval of the existing use permit on that property. He stated that the Planning Commission waived all of the parking for said restaurant, Gelato Classico, and the dog grooming facility. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Laycock replied that the use at the subject site was a nail salon and is considered to also have a high intensity use. Mr. Lovers. appeared before the Planning Commission to state that the nail salon closed approximately eight months ago. Mr. Laycock stated that the nail salon's parking requirements consisted of six parking spaces, or one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area. Commissioner Edwards asked how long the existing take -out restaurant with no parking and the nail salon that provided six parking spaces operated simultaneously? Mr. Lovera replied that the businesses were operating simultaneously for 18 months. In response to Commissioner Person, Mr. Lovers. stated that he would agree to close the existing business and pay rent at the site until the four year lease runs out to prohibit a business at the site. Chairman Pomeroy explained that the Planning Commission does not object to the proposed use at the subject site; however, the Commission is concerned with the existing use permit. Mr. Lovers stated that the crossing guard at the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway signed the petition in support of the proposed facility, and did not state any objections to the business. Mr. Lovera referred to Condition No. 17 that states the Planning Commission has the ability to add or modify conditions of approval if the operation is detrimental to the neighborhood and the use permit also can be revoked. -15- COMMISSIONERS timG� in�9o�9fzy >om'y�. June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Korade explained that the two use permits must be considered separately, and that no condition can be imposed on the use permit that relates to any type of revocation affecting the other business. Commissioner Edwards addressed the traffic. He explained that the use would not create a system that would be worse than what previously existed when the nail salon was in existence simultaneously with Mucho Munchies 18 months ago. He stated that the parking problem that would exist if the application would be approved would be similar to what was previously approved on the adjoining property. Commissioner Edwards stated that the salon's patrons remained on the premises longer than a customer would at a take -out restaurant. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. Chairman Pomeroy stated that there is an under utilized Municipal public parking lot close to the site. * * * Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3352, subject * * * to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Conditions No. 3 and No. 4 and the deletion of Condition No. 15. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS• 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. i 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accomodate the proposed facility. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, landscaping, and a portion of the required parking will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3352 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 -16- COMMISSIONERS '100 dh Marl$ 0 June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROM CALL INDEX the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS• 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and that all the required additional parking spaces (28 spaces) shall be waived. 3. That the seating and dining area shall be incidental to the take -out restaurant and any introduction of table service will require amending the use permit. A maximum of 6 tables and 12 seats shall be permitted. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 a.m. and midnight daily, and that any increase in hours shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 3352. 5. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 6. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the take -out restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 7. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 8. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 9. That no on -sale or off -sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 10. That the sidewalk on East Coast Highway shall be kept clean and regularly maintained. Said sidewalk shall -17- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALL be swept, vacuumed, or washed in such a manner that any debris or wastewater does not enter the storm drain system or the Bay. 11. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from East Coast Highway and adjoining fproperties. 12. That no seating shall be provided in the patio area in front of the facility or in the courtyard area directly to the rear of the facility unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 13. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 14. That a trash compactor be provided in the take -out restaurant facility. is15. Deleted. 16. That the employees shall park their vehicles on -site at all times. 17. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 18. 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. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. • I I I I I I I *,t A. Use Permit No. 3076 (Continued Public Hearing) -18- MINUTES INDEX . COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 Zm 99 yp y ors CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Request to review a previously approved use permit which Item No.4 permitted the establishment of the Newport Landing Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live UP3076 entertainment on property located in the C -1 District. UP3122A LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 296 -38 (Resubdivision No. 765), located at 503 Continued Edgewater Place, on the southeasterly to corner of Edgewater Place and Adams 7 -20 -89 Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Douglas L. Salisbury, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant AND B. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to review a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of the Edgewater Place complex, including the Parker's Seafood Grill with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment, and the Edgewater Place parking structure on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lots 1 -3, 7 -12, an unnumbered lot, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; Lots 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract, located at 309 Palm Street on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: BA Mortgage and International Realty Corporation, San Francisco OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Pers6n stepped down from the dais in the capacity of Attorney at Law inasmuch as he represents one of the tenants located on the subject property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, . William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that to comply with Condition No. 61, Use Permit No. 3076, and Condition No. 83, Use Permit No. 3122, in conjunction with -19- COMMISSIONERS ymGFA\rr y o p OHO June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDEX the review of these applications at the September 21, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission will determine if the left turn lane on East Balboa Boulevard and the parking spaces in the parking structure are required. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Laycock explained that public notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, and the public hearing should have been posted on the property: In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Laycock stated that Greg Armstrong, Environmental Services Coordinator, Police Department, advised that no telephone calls or letters of complaint have been received in conjunction with the use permits. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. David Eales, Vice President of BA Mortgage, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Eales stated that Mr. Ron Mincer, consultant, has been evaluating the handicapped parking issue at the subject site. He advised that Mr. • Mincer has not presented a formal written report to determine the feasibility of providing handicapped parking spaces at Edgewater Place (Use Permit No. 3122); however, the representatives of Edgewater Place will meet with the City staff and representatives from the Newport Landing Restaurant to evaluate the recommendations. Mr. Eales stated that a suggestion that has been discussed is to provide valet service at the parking structure for the handicapped. He explained that the valet would drive the automobile to parking spaces in the parking structure or behind the Newport Landing Restaurant. Commissioner Winburn stated that the City Traffic Engineer has indicated that a parking plan that would require automobiles to back out onto Adams Street would not be acceptable. In response to a statement expressed by Commissioner Winburn with respect to valet parking, Mr. Eales explained that wheelchairs that have been installed inside the automobile would be exchanged with a wheelchair on the premises, and said wheelchair would be installed in the vehicle so the automobile could be operated by the valet. Commissioner Winburn recommended that the valet not take the handicap's vehicle inasmuch as some automobiles are equipped with special equipment that a valet would not • -20- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX know how to operate. She stated that a handicap parking area allows a handicap person additional time to exit the vehicle and the designated area makes it easier for the handicap person to reach the destination with dignity. In response to Commissioner Winburn, Don Webb, City E Engineer, stated that he had not been informed of the discussion concerning valet parking for the handicapped parking spaces, and he said the suggestion has never been instituted in the City. Commissioner Winburn and Mr. Webb discussed the feasibility of the required four handicap parking spaces. Mr. Webb stated that the City Traffic Engineer visited the subject site recently and observed that access to the sites previously approved for handicap parking were not accessible for handicap parking. Mr. Laycock stated that he had observed a similar scene. Mr. Laycock further stated that "No Parking" signs had been posted on the parking structure, and only one handicap parking sign was posted on the building behind the Newport Landing Restaurant. Mr. Douglas Salisbury, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission concerning Use Permit No. 3076, Newport . Landing Restaurant. Mr. Salisbury explained that at the time of the March 9, 1989, Planning Commission meeting Edgewater Place was in bankruptcy, and on this date at 11:15 a.m. the bankruptcy was concluded by BA Mortgage. Therefore, there was no one available to discuss the issues that concerned the Planning Commission. Mr. Salisbury stated that Mr. Mincer informed the applicants that he would submit recommendations to them the week of June 12, 1989. Mr. Salisbury and Chairman Pomeroy discussed a continuance of the subject public hearing to allow the applicants time to review Mr. Miner's recommendation and to meet with the staff. Commissioner Di Sano requested that the public hearing be posted on the premises to inform the residents of said public hearing. Discussion ensued between Mr. Salisbury, Commissioner Di Sano, and Mr. Webb concerning the detached tables and chairs that are in the area between the bulkhead and the sidewalk in front of Parker's Landing Restaurant. Mr. Laycock explained that the tables and chairs are permitted for public use, and are restricted for restaurant use. Mr. Webb stated that a sign was to be posted stating that the tables and chairs may be used by the general public. -21- COMMISSIONERS CALL June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioner Debay suggested that the Police Department has the ability to ticket illegal parking in the handicap parking zone. Mr. Eales reappeared before the Planning Commission to discuss Commissioner Winburn's concern regarding the parking fee in the parking structure. Commissioner Winburn suggested that the fee that is charged should be an amount that would attract the public to use the parking structure. Mr. Eales agreed that it would be counter - productive to set a fee that would discourage people from using the parking structure. He stated that inasmuch as BA Mortgage paid $3.9 million for the Edgewater Place property that had incurred a $3 million debt, the applicants consider all concerns to be serious. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Winburn suggested that the applicants provide three handicap parking spaces immediately, and add the additional required handicap parking spaces when the matter is resolved. Mr. Webb pointed out that inasmuch as the Building Code requirement is five handicapped parking spaces, staff has requested a statement from Mr. Mincer how he justified the elimination of the fifth handicap parking space. Mr. Webb agreed that the three handicap parking spaces need to be posted immediately, and the turn- around areas posted with "No Parking" signs. Mr. Salisbury agreed to the condition as the plan is described in the staff report. Mr. Salisbury and Mr. Webb discussed the delivery area, and Mr. Webb suggested that the deliveries be made when the customers would not be using the "no parking" area as a turn - around, and he suggested that a sign be posted to that affect. * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. Motion 3076 and Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) to the July 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Also, to immediately post three handicap parking spaces, and "No Parking" signs in the turn - around areas, except for deliveries, according to the handicap parking plan as stated in the June 8, 1989, Ayes * * * * * * Planning Commission meeting staff report. MOTION CARRIED. Absent • _22_ MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS CALL Motion All Ayes 0 June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Variance No. 1152 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling which will exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site, will provide less than the required open space and exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District, on property located in the R -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow: a 10 foot building encroachment, a 14 foot chimney encroachment, and a 14 foot 6 inch second floor deck encroachment, all within the required 20 foot front yard setback adjacent to First Avenue; and a 7 foot building encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2 and 4, Block 429, Corona del Mar, located at 2310 First Avenue, on the northeasterly side of First Avenue, between Acacia Avenue and Begonia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Arthur Leeser and Robert Feiss, Los Angeles OWNERS: Same as applicants William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the June 22, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to provide additional time to prepare revised plans as suggested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pers6n requested that the item be continued to the July 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting in consideration of the June 22, 1989, Planning Commission Agenda. Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1152 to the July 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. -23- MINUTES INDEX Ti-am Nn-6 V1152 Continued to 7 -5 -R9 COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 ti� 99 pym� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1147 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing V1147 office building and property located in Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Place Planned Community so as to permit the Denied installation of new air conditioning equipment within a portion of the existing off - street parking lot which will result in.the loss of existing required off - street parking spaces; and to allow the conversion of the existing air conditioning equipment room to office and storage use without providing the additional required off - street parking. As a partial alternative, the applicant is also requesting to increase the number of compact parking spaces on the property so as to provide a portion of the additional required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Maps 54 -11 (Resubdivision No. 385), located at 1501 Quail Street, on the southwesterly side of Quail Street, between Spruce Avenue and Birch Street, in the Newport Place • Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Boyle Engineering Corporation, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Conrad Hohener appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hohener concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Pers6n commented that the applicant's response to the statement of support that asks "What exceptional circumstances apply to the property ? ", does not relate to exceptional circumstances. Mr. Hohener explained that the applicants intend to install a thermal energy Storage system to replace the existing air condition system that is obsolete. He stated that the equipment would require the removal of two parking spaces. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill concerning the installation of the air conditioning system, Mr. Hohener explained that the 30 foot by 16 foot by 10 • foot container would be installed underground; the shelter on top of the container, the air handling units on the roof; the units would be screened and would be less then -24- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 5 feet high; the applicants only submitted a site plan that does not show any screening details; that a six foot high block wall would be constructed to shield the two trash bins; the shelter and the container are too heavy to mount on the roof of the building; the applicants intend to spend $350,000.00 for the air conditioning system; and the noise emitting from the air conditioning system would not be louder than the noise level that exists in the area. Mr. Harry Saunders, mechanical engineer, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Saunders described how the thermal energy storage system would be more efficient if the equipment would be installed as proposed. Motion x Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1147 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" in accordance with "b" as stated in the staff report's table. Commissioner Debay referred to the Traffic Study and automobile count in the parking lot, and she pointed out that more compact automobiles use the parking lot than the 25 percent requirement and that restriping the parking lot would not • be a problem. Commissioner Debay commended the applicants for utilizing the staggered work hours. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he would not support the motion on the basis that the Planning Commission must make the required findings, and he believed that the Planning Commission could not make the findings as they relate to Findings No. 1 and 2 in the Municipal Code to grant the variance. He further stated that the parking deficiency could set a precedent in the area. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would not support the motion on the basis that it would appear that the applicants have outgrown the site inasmuch as they are not able to provide required parking. He further stated that there is no on- street parking permitted in the area. Commissioner Winburn addressed the use of compact parking spaces and the lack of on- street parking. Commissioner Debay and William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, discussed the use of Universal parking spaces on the site, and that it would not be to the applicants' advantage to redesign the parking area to Universal • parking. -25- COMMISSIONERS y�G� \10P\rr 0 om�s June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Ayes * * Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1147, subject Noes * * * * to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" including 268 compact parking spaces and 1 parking space for each 259 square feet. MOTION DENIED. Motion * Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1147, subject to the Ayes * * * * * findings in Exhibit "C ". No Mr. Hohener reappeared before the Planning Commission to discuss the options that the applicants have so as to install the air conditioning system and to make alterations to the existing building. Mr. Laycock explained that there would be space for at least two additional parking spaces at another location on the site to allow the thermal unit in the parking area without waiving the two required parking spaces. In reference to the alterations to the building as proposed by the applicants, Mr. Laycock stated that there is a chance that the applicants could lease the building in the future to a business that would not have an adequate number of parking spaces if the waiver of parking were approved. Mr. Hohener explained that 12 percent of the parking lot is vacant, there are 34 company automobiles that are not always on -site, and the area has had a high vacancy rate in recent years. Commissioner Merrill commented that when all of the buildings in the area are leased, there will be a lack of parking. Motion was voted on to deny Variance No. 1147 subject to the findings in Exhibit "C ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots in the area which justify the approval of the proposed waiver of parking spaces. 2. That approval of this application could set a precedent for other office uses in Newport Place or other commercial areas of the City to request the waiver of parking spaces. . 3. That 258 of the parking for compact parking spaces as approved by the Modification Permit No. 2535 was consistent with the intent of the Newport Place -26- COMMISSIONERS - I x y C`�4syo June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDEX Planned Community Development Standards and to exceed this percentage as proposed would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. That the traffic analysis report submitted by the applicant does not address the parking demand of future tenants in the building that may require additional parking spaces. 5. That the granting of such application will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. Variance No. 1154 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to permit the construction of a second floor V1154 addition and a third level roof deck to an existing single family dwelling which will exceed 1.5 times the buildable Continued area of the site and will exceed the 24 foot basic height to limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District, on 7 -20 -89 property located in. the R -1.5 District. The proposal also includes: a request to waive one of the required off - street parking spaces; a request to approve a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the second floor addition to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback, 7 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback and 2 feet 6 inches into the required 4 foot side yard alley setback; and a modification to allow the construction of a carport which encroaches 4 feet into the required 4 foot interior side yard setback and 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 24, Block 13, Section 4, Balboa Island, located at 527 Park Avenue, on the southwesterly side of Park Avenue, between Topaz Avenue and -27- COMMISSIONERS a+y�Ot June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Turquoise Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Maxwell B. Phillips, Balboa Island OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Maxwell Phillips, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Phillips stated that his request consists of a structure to be built on one -half of a lot and a handrail on a third level roof deck that increases the height of the building. He suggested that a wall between the study and one of the bedrooms could be removed so that there would not be an increase in the number of bedrooms on the property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Phillips replied that the tenant residing at the subject property owns a small automobile, and is capable of backing • out onto Park Avenue. He stated that the driveway is not a patio area. In response to Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Phillips concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A" or "B ". Mr. Mike Baginski, 138 Topaz Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Baginski stated that his structure is located on the other one -half of lot of the subject property. Mr. Baginski stated that the existing and proposed first floor plans are not similar; the existing one story house is proposed to be a two story structure; his house sits on the front portion of the lot and the subject property is at the rear portion of the lot; that two structures located on the other one -half lots on Park Avenue have provided two parking spaces each; that the proposed third level roof deck area is more of an eyesore than a useful area; and he described the setback encroachments surrounding the property. Mr. Baginski concluded that a dwelling could be constructed on the subject lot that would meet the majority of the requirements with the exception of the front yard setback. He recommended that the project be redesigned and resubmitted to the Planning Commission. • -28- COMMISSIONERS CALL • Motion • June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Baginski stated that because his property is approximately 50 years old, the building would be legal non - conforming. Mr. Paul Renfree, 136 Topaz Avenue, located on the south side of the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission. He objected to the height of the third level roof deck, and he commented that he was not aware if the applicant has provided two stairwells as required. Mr. Renfree stated that the structure above the carport would impact his view. He further stated that the rear setback is 28 inches, not 36 inches as stated. In response to questions posed by Mr. Bajinski, Mr. Laycock explained that the public notices were mailed from the Planning Department ten days prior to the subject public hearing to residents within 300 feet of the subject property, and a notice was posted on said property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant redesign the project so as to be consistent with the provisions of Exhibit "B" in the staff report: to allow a maximum of 1,304 square feet of gross floor area, it would allow the building setbacks as proposed, and it would deny the request to exceed the 24 foot basic height limit and the request to build a covered carport which encroaches into the required side and rear yard setbacks. The Commission discussed a review of the revised plans at a future Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the unique property, and the findings that are required to approve a variance. Commissioner Merrill stated that the applicant should have considered the one -half lot when he purchased the property. He maintained that good planning dictates a small lot and a small house. Commissioner Pers6n concurred that the size of the proposed dwelling is too large for the size of lot, and he addressed the findings required to approve a variance and the unusual circumstances of the subject property. Motion was made to -29- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS y�G�y 9�oy CC�� om$ June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX continue Variance No. 1154 to the July 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting so as to give the applicant time to redesign the single family dwelling. Mr. Phillips reappeared before the Planning Commission to review the suggestions as proposed by the Commission. He agreed to continue the item to the July 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion was voted on to continue Variance No. 1154 to the July 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION All Ayes CARRIED. Street Name Change (Public Hearing) Item No.9 Request to consider changing the street name of 22nd Street Street to Santiago Drive. Naive Change LOCATION: 22nd Street between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue, in the Upper Back Bay 22nd St. • area. to Santiago APPLICANTS: Various Property Owners on 22nd Street, Dr. Newport Beach Approved The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mrs. Betty Ann Dent, 2419 - 22nd Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owners in support of the name change. Mrs. Dent cited the reasons for the requested name change: that 22nd Street is only one block between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue; the confusion of the change from three digit numbers in Costa Mesa to four digit numbers in Newport Beach; there are two 22nd Streets in Newport Beach; when Santiago Drive changes to 22nd Street after crossing Irvine Avenue, it is not consistent with similar streets in the area; the residents want to be known as Newport Beach residents; 15th Street and 16th Street divide the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, which is not comparable to 22nd Street; previous objections from 22nd Street residents to the name change is the hardship that would be created to change the address on printed material, -30- COMMISSIONERS June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX and there have never been any problems concerning emergency services; and inasmuch as one street sign is currently bent there is only the need for one additional street sign. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the construction that is proposed for 22nd Street, and the confusion that exists for 22nd Street residents residing in Newport Beach. Mr. George Rombach, 2009 Centella Place, a cul -de -sac street that enters from 22nd Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the street name change for the following reasons: there are recognizable differences between 22nd Street in Newport Beach that is only one block and 15th and 16th Streets that are longer streets; on two separate occasions he contacted the Police Department with respect to service calls and he was advised to contact Costa Mesa, however, the matter was readily resolved; the confusion to give directions to Centella Drive off of 22nd Street; that Centella Drive residents were not included in the signed petition; and the property owner at 2400 - 22nd Street is primarily an absentee owner. • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to recommend to the City All Ayes Council for the street name change from 22nd Street to Santiago Drive, subject to the findings and condition in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS; 1. That a substantial number of property owners on 22nd Street between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue have requested that the street be named Santiago Drive. 2. That the request to rename the street entails cost of the City for installing new street signs. 3. That the Fire and Police Departments have no objections with the proposed street name change. CONDITION: 1. That the applicants shall pay. the cost of installing the required new street name signs. -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 8, 1989 \�� \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALL INDEX Amendment No. 679 (Public Hearing) Item No.10 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport A679 Beach Municipal Code so as to define and regulate — "specialty food" uses in the City; and the acceptance of Denied an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the standards proposed for the "specialty food" use are comparable to the standards adopted for typical small take- out restaurants that have been approved on Marine Avenue on Balboa Island and on the Balboa Peninsula. He stated that if an applicant met the requirements of the proposed Ordinance, the Ordinance would alleviate the need for a use permit and the applicant would automatically receive an approval for a "specialty food" use. However, an applicant would be required to apply for a use permit if all of the standards are not met. Commissioner Persdn stated that the proposed Ordinance was requested inasmuch as the original Take -Out Restaurant Ordinance was written for the typical take -out restaurant similar to McDonald's Restaurant. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his objections with respect to the proposed Ordinance. He indicated that inasmuch as the Restaurant Ordinance permitted a restaurant in any commercial district, restaurants are now in retail stores where they are an inappropriate use of property; that any establishment that sells food should be required to apply for a use permit inasmuch as it would put some restrictions on a food establishment; small restaurant owners typically violate the law the most inasmuch as they often do not provide trash compactors, and the lack of seating initiates loitering; more traffic is generated than the required one parking space for each 250 square feet if a "special food" use is successful, and there are typically several employees on the premises. Mr. Nichols further stated that a 10:00 p.m. closing time is appropriate; however, he said that after 11:00 p.m. • becomes a problem inasmuch as it takes an additional one - -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 8, 1989 f99s d y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX half hour to completely close the facility. He suggested that the Restaurant Ordinance should be amended to state that if a restaurant's operating hour changes to 11:00 p.m. or later within 200 feet of a residential area, that the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Laycock explained that the subject Ordinance is for "specialty food" establishments only. He commented that the public notice did not advertise consideration to amend the Restaurant Ordinance. Chairman Pomeroy explained that the "Specialty Food" Ordinance proposes to simplify the approval process for a small businessman. Commissioner Pers6n referred to Section 20.72.015 "Uses Permitted" of the proposed Amendment, and he explained that if the establishment provided the nine standards listed that a use permit would not be required; however, if the facility did not meet the standards and did not provide parking, a use permit would be required. Commissioner Edwards referred to Section 20.72.015, and he pointed out that Mr. Nichols foregoing concerns are addressed in the nine required standards. Commissioner Edwards indicated that there is an attempt to assist the small businessman, and he stated that if the operator violates the Ordinance then that operator would be required to apply for a use permit. In response to comments that were made by Mr. Nichols with respect to use permits, Mr. Laycock explained that the use permit fee is $867.00. Commissioner Pers6n indicated concerns that he has previously expressed with respect to residential uses immediately adjacent to commercial areas. He explained that the "Specialty Food" Ordinance limits the gross square footage. Commissioner Pers6n emphasized that the proposed Ordinance is a good, workable Ordinance and if there are problems in the future, then the Ordinance can be revised. Mr. Nichols described personal encounters caused by restaurants that are adjacent to residential areas in Corona del Mar. • -33- COMMISSIONERS o ;� aroF June 8, 1989 yd 9P �nm CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Winburn and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the 1,200 square feet or less of gross floor area that would be required for the "Specialty Food" restaurant. Mr. Laycock explained that 1,200 square feet is the typical size of take -out restaurants that maintained certain criteria that have been approved by the Planning Commission where all of the parking had been waived. Commissioner Edwards requested.a clarification for Section 20.72.060A, "Off- Street Parking" and how the standards would affect the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Laycock explained that inasmuch as "specialty food" is considered to be comparable to retail use, the same parking standards would apply, including nonconforming buildings that do not require parking. Commissioner Pers6n suggested that the Ordinance be continued for two weeks to ask the City Attorney's Office to provide an amendment that a use permit might be required. He stated that he was under the impression that a use permit would be required in the event parking was not provided, and that a nonconforming building would render • it necessary to have a use permit. Commissioner Pers6n and Mr. Laycock discussed the establishments where use permits were approved for take -out restaurant facilities with small gross floor areas where parking was either waived entirely or in -lieu parking spaces were required only for employees. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he could not support the Ordinance as it is currently worded. He referred to previous concerns expressed by the Planning Commission with respect to a "string" of restaurants in a block, and because of the number of nonconforming buildings in the City, he said that each establishment should be considered on a case by case basis. Commissioner Pers6n pointed out that the foregoing Section 20.72.015 addresses concerns that have previously disturbed residents, and if an operator does not comply with the standards, then a use permit would be required. Chairman Pomeroy stated that an attempt to set up a category that would separate "specialty food" restaurants from "take -out" restaurants is a legitimate consideration, and it is not appropriate to require a small business that • -34- COMMISSIONERS Z� 9'A0���99 9Z June 8, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX complies with very specific regulations to apply for a use permit. He explained that the proposed Ordinance is written in a manner that would protect the surrounding area. Motion Motion was made and voted on to recommend Amendment No. 679 Ayes to the City Council. MOTION DENIED. Noes; * * * * Motion was made to continue Amendment No. 679 for further Motion * review. Commissioner Edwards stated that he had concerns with respect to Section 20.72.060, "Off- Street Parking" inasmuch as many of the complaints that have been heard by the Planning Commission have been directly related to parking. Commissioner Debay and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the proposed parking standards. Commissioner Pers6n pointed out that "specialty food" restaurants are typically walk - in, non - destination establishments. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the proposed Ordinance would take the burden off of the City to waive parking. Commissioner Merrill stated that under the use permit . procedure, the Planning Commission may choose not to waive parking if there is not adequate parking in the area. He commented that parking should be considered from a planning standpoint. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would support a motion to continue the proposed Amendment. He stated that the off - street parking section of the proposed Ordinance is written ambiguously. Chairman Pomeroy suggested that a use permit could be required if a parking ratio requirement was not met. Motion Commissioner Debay withdrew her motion to continue Withdrawn Amendment No. 679. Commissioner Di Sano made a motion to deny Amendment No. Motion * 679. He explained that applicants are not being refused Ayes * * * * an opportunity through the use permit procedure, and that Noes * * the fee for a use permit is not prohibitive. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -35- COMMISSIONERS 4 0 o a June 8, 1989 G99 Pi92 y �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Debay Business All Ayes and Commissioner Di Sano from the July 6, 1989, Planning DiSano & Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Debay excused ' * * * 7 -6 -89 ADJOURNMENT: 10:58 p.m. Adjournmen GARY DI SANG, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -36-