Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1995. COMMISSIONERS 0 6 �%Rlo �***\ Pre: Absi 17— Mot: Aye: Abs( Absi 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: June 22, 1995 MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL sent * Chairman Gifford was excused. ant EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager Jay Garcia, Senior Planner on Webb, Public Works Director Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of June 8. 1995 Minutes of 6 -8 -95 Chairman Gifford requested that page 35, first paragraph, be modified for clarification. Approved Lon * Motion was made and voted on to approve the modified June 22, 1995, * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. ant :ain Public Comments: Public Comments Commissioner Di Sano introduced his family, and he expressed his appreciation to the City staff and the numerous Commissioners that he served with on the Planning Commission during the past eight years. Commissioner Pomeroy complimented Commissioner Di Sano of his service to the City and the Commission. Acting Chairman Ridgeway addressed the transition that is currently taking place at City Hall, and he expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Di Sano for his strength and 1 COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T-.-- nn i nnc ROLL INDEX CALL leadership on the Planning Commission. He acknowledged Commissioner Brown's tenure on the Planning Commission since January, 1995. sss Posting of the Agenda: Posting f the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission ends Agenda was posted on Friday, June 16, 1995, in front of City Hall. .r* General Plan Amendment No. 95 -2 Disc. It Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan as No. 1 follows: A. 507 Jasmine Avenue Item A Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to redesignate enied property located at 507 Jasmine Avenue in Corona del Mar from Two - Family Residential to Retail And Service Commercial. Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, discussed General Plan Amendment No. 95 -2 (A), 507 Jasmine Avenue, and the issue of an appropriate place to define the line between the commercial and residential uses in Corona del Mar. The property owner is concerned with the quality of life in her neighborhood since the Boston Market take -out restaurant was opened on East Coast Highway. She expressed concerns regarding the increase in traffic in the area, and the additional lighting in the parking lot. The property owner stated that if her property would be changed to Commercial it would allow her property to be occupied or reconstructed as an office use. Ms. Temple stated that the subject property is bordered on two sides by an alley. The residential lot is approximately 8 feet higher than the alley elevation, and the Boston Chicken parking lot is approximately 10 feet lower than ' -2 am COMMISSIONERS 4 <%r-r %Sk�*\90'�SA9�\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the alley. Ms. Temple described the uses surrounding the subject property, and she concluded that the subject property relates more to residential than commercial development on East Coast Highway. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Ms. Temple replied that an alley or a street generally divides the residential from the commercial areas. She said that in the Retail and Service Commercial, and the Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial District that general commercial uses are permitted as a use. Inasmuch as there is no functional way under the Zoning Code to limit the use of the subject property for office that the property could potentially be converted to retail use. Ms. Temple fiuther explained that designing a custom Zoning District for a single lot in Corona del Mar would be considered spot zoning under State Planning Law unless there would be an intent by the Planning Commission to use a District to more broadly apply to transition zone properties. Commissioner Adams ' responded that he would consider retail use on the subject property inappropriate because of the nature of the neighborhood. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown, Ms. Temple stated that she would consider the traffic in the alley to come from the residents because the alley does not have a physical relationship to the commercial property. There are two parking spaces off of the alley that are part of the commercial lot, but she opined that the parking spaces may be used by employees because of the grade differential. She discussed the quick turnaround traffic as opposed to dinner house traffic, and the intensity of the lights from the parking lot and building. Ms. Temple suggested that a higher fence or landscaping along the edge of the property could be used to screen the aforementioned nuisances. Ms. Temple further replied that an Overlay District Zone could be applied on a residential property for the purpose of allowing additional flexibility when the property exists in a transition area. Ms. Jill Linder, 507 Jasmine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that since the Boston Market opened that the neighborhood has more commercial traffic, parking problems, and the ' -3- COMMISSIONERS • 9 \ -5\1O 4 Mot Aye NoE Ab: 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T.. «e 77 1 OOC ROLL CALL INDEX take -out restaurant's lights illuminate her house. Ms. Linder stated that she is impacted by the noise from the Newport Tire Center which is located behind her property , and the odors from the Boston Market. Ms. Linder requested that she be allowed professional office space similar to the architect's office across the street at 500 Jasmine Avenue. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Ms. Linder stated that her immediate neighbors indicated they would not object to her request. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the architect's office at 500 Jasmine Avenue was approved by the City more than 25 years ago, and he explained that the request could set a precedent in the City today. Acting Chairman Ridgeway concluded that the request would be bad planning after he visited the site. The precedent setting nature of the request is too severe on a small community of Corona del Mar, and he explained how it is feasible that a retail use could be permitted on the site. The grade is severe and it is a natural separation between the commercial and residential districts. Mr. Hewicker stated that a Council Policy exists that allows home occupations as an incidental use of the primary occupancy of the building as a residence. A business license would be required. He stated that staff could visit the Boston Market premises to review and to consider reducing some of the impacts that the business has had on the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Adams and Acting Chairman Ridgeway suggested that the Planning Commission review the use permit that exists on the Boston Market property. :ion * Motion was made and voted on to initiate GPA 95 -2 (A).The vote was 'S NOT TO INITIATE. :s * t * * x ;ent *sa 0 -4_ COMMISSIONERS 0 Mot Aye Abs Abs Mot Aye Abs Abs 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX B. Newport Center Drive Item B Request to amend the General Plan Circulation Element to change the Initiated arterial roadway classification for the ring section of Newport Center Drive from a Major Road (Six -lane, Divided) to a Primary Road (Four - lane, Divided). This amendment will allow for the establishment of parallel parking on Newport Center Drive around Fashion Island. ion * Motion was made and voted on to initiate GPA 95 -2 (B). S * * INITIATED. ant Lain AND C. Newport Village Item C Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to redesignate Initiated ` the 10 acre site located at the corner of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard from Governmental, Education and Institutional Facilities to Retail and Service Commercial, in order to allow the construction of a retail shopping center. The square footage of development allocated to the site will remain the same at 100,000 sq.ft. ion * Motion was made and vote on to initiate GPA 95 -2 (C). INITIATED. 5 * I * ant * AND Lain D. Newport Harbor Art Museum Item D Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to re- establish initiated the land use designation of Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities for the former Newport Center Branch Library site, and to establish an overall museum development allocation of 70,000 sq.ft., which will accommodate both the short-term and long- term development program of the Newport Harbor Art Museum. -5- COMMISSIONERS Mot i Aye Abs Mot Aye 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL I on * * M Motion was made and voted on to initiate GPA 95 -2 (D). COMMISSIONERS • 9 pry' 1 Mot Aye Abe 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ,,,,,c ROLL INDEX CALL ion * Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 825 for public s * * * * * hearing on July 20, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. ent Amendment No. 826 Disc. item No. 3 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to add "nail salons" to the table of permitted uses set for in the RSC, APF and RMC Zoning Districts, as well as various Specific Area Plans and Planned Community Districts Citywide, and to delete the Hearic 70195 use permit requirement for "nail salons" within various Specific Area Plans, INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ' James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the subject request. He referred to the list of shopping centers within Planned Community Districts that is attached to the staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission could initiate specific parking requirements for the shopping centers inasmuch as they contain large amounts of land and pools of parking for various uses in the centers. The same nail salon problems do not exist in the shopping centers as they exist in the older areas of the City where there are Specific Area Plans and strip commercial highway zoning. Commissioner Brown supported the proposed parking regulations in the small shopping centers that have parking congestion at specific hours of the day. Acting Chairman Ridgeway opined that the parking requirements did not need to be modified for nail salons, and generally speaking, the shopping centers are adequately parked. -7 COMMISSIONERS • 9� ��cT ��i9y��99y 9` FAO Mot Aye Abs 17� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4 -8- ROLL INDEX CALL I ion * * M Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 826 for public S * * * * * * h hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of July 20, 1995. ent * * M MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3558 (Public Hearing) A Agenda Item No. 1 Request to permit the establishment of administrative and clerical offices and automobile maintenance facilities for Avis's rental fleet on U UP No.355s property located in the Newport Place Planned Community. A Approved LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 64 -25 (Resubdivision No. 462) located at 848 -888 Dove Street, on the southeasterly side of Dove Street between Bristol Street North and Quail Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Robert H. Lee Associates, Petaluma OWNER: Nikko Capital, Newport Beach AND A. Use Pernvt No. 3557 (Public Hearin s) A Agenda Iten No. 2 Request to permit the establishment of an automobile storage facility for Avis's automobile rental fleet on property located in the M -t -A U UP No. 3557 District. The proposal includes washing, vacuuming and fueling a and services of the automobiles. Also included in the application is a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 6 foot high masonry wall to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot street side setback along Dove Street. COMMISSIONERS 0 5 Mot Aye Abe CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL AND B. Traffic Study No. 105 (Public Hearing) Ts No, io Request to permit a traffic study so as to allow an automobile storage Approved facility. LOCATION: Lot 24, Tract No. 3201 and Parcel 1, Parcel Map 94 -142, located at 4201 Birch Street, on the northerly corner of Birch Street and Dove Street, across Birch Street from the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Robert H. Lee Associates, Petaluma OWNER: Donald R Lawrenz, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, suggested that inasmuch as Item Nos. 1 and 2 have the same applicant and the applications are similar that the public hearing be held simultaneously. He stated that a letter was received by the Planning Department from Mr. Frank Lawrence representing Mr. Frank Malik dated June 22, 1995, objecting to Use Permit No. 3557 and Traffic Study No. 105. Mr. Malik received approval on November 10, 1994, for a parcel at 3543 Campus Drive that encompasses the Campus Drive frontage of Item No. 2, for an automobile repair facility. Acting Chairman Ridgeway pointed out that the objection stated in the letter is a civil matter and it is beyond the authority of the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker replied that the property owner, Donald R Lawrenz, initialed the use permit application to grant the applicant authority to apply for the permits. ion Motion was made and voted on that Item Nos. 1 and 2 will be heard in S * * * tandem. MOTION CARRIED. ent 0 -9 4 4 COMMISSIONERS �oyo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ,, 1^ r ROLL CALL INDEX Don Webb, Public Works Director, referred to Supplement Agenda Item No. 2, and the request to add an additional condition to Traffic Study No. 105, stating that Removal or delivery of the rental vehicles (using Icnge trucks) shall be prohibited on the public streets surrounding the subject site. Mr. Webb explained that previously vehicles were being delivered by truck and parking in the center of the street to off -load the vehicles. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Webb explained that the gates on Campus Drive may need to be modified inasmuch as the gates appear to be narrow. He pointed out that the circulation plan will be reviewed by staff during plan check. Commissioner Adams asked if noise from the vacuums would have a potential impact on the adjoining land uses. He addressed the proposed hours of operation between 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, and the cut outs in the fence on Jamboree Road for an automobile display. Commissioner ' Brown stated that the plans indicate that a new concrete block wall would be built to match the existing block wall that would remain on the site. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway concerning the Fiscal Impact analysis that was included in the staff report, Mr. Hewicker replied that a transition of what is being included in the staff report is occurring. He explained the history of the zoning in the subject area, and the fact that the Newport Place Planned Community was established at a time when the City was attempting to attract new automobile dealerships. In recent years some of the automobile dealerships moved out of the area and the zoning that existed on the property had outlived its usefulness, but the only types of uses that were permitted in the areas formerly occupied by new automobile dealerships were rental car facilities, repair facilities, etc. that were subject to a use permit. However, there may be other uses in the future that the City could attract to the subject area that may generate more revenue than the support facilities for the airport. Mr. Hewicker stated that there is a Council Policy that requires the staff to provide an economic analysis to `major projects' that will be coming before the City. He could not determine if the Planning Commission would consider the subject applications to be `major projects'. -10- COMMISSIONERS • 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX The purpose for the economic analysis in the staff report may have been to give the Planning Commission a point of departure as to what the property may currently generate in terms of revenue and what it might generate with the proposed uses. Commissioner Pomeroy questioned the amount of time that it takes staff to provide an economic analysis for a difference of a few hundred dollars. In fivther response to Acting Chairman Ridgeway's question, Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that staff made a determination to provide the Planning Commission the option and appropriate findings to deny the projects if they so chose. In order to develop adequate findings for denial it is necessary to have information within the public record. To consider a potential denial of the use permits, it was necessary to go back to the very basis of why zoning exists, and that is the general welfare of the community as a whole. As a result, the subject information was important to support the finding that the project was detrimental to the general welfare in order to provide a legal basis for denial. Commissioner Brown pointed out that when an automobile is rented at the airport that the point of collection of the sales tax is the County of Orange. He explained how the applicant has the ability to provide additional revenue to the City. Acting Chairman Ridgeway and Commissioner Brown discussed the aforementioned comments. Acting Chairman Ridgeway commented that it is possible that the City will be servicing the airport, and the fact that the City accepts the servicing of the airport there should be a Fair Share Revenue source from the County to the City. Commissioner Brown pointed out that the plan for the Dove Street facility indicates a new rental counter. In response to comments by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Ms. Clauson stated that the City Manager, staff, and City Council are the parties that would consider the Fair Share Revenue for the subject applications. Acting Chairman Ridgeway stated that the staff report includes a Fiscal Analysis Report, and there is a loss of retail automobile sales from automobile agencies which are not going to locate on the site. He said that if the Fiscal Report had not been presented to the Planning Commission he would not ' -11- \1%405 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4 4 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX have asked the question. Mr. Hewicker explained why the County of Orange has taken a strong position with respect to how they would share revenue with the City. Acting Chairman Ridgeway suggested that the City Manager address the issue inasmuch as there is a land use change occurring in the airport area. There will be more support uses that we are servicing and not receiving benefits from, but we are burdened with their problem. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Gary Semling, representing the applicant and Avis Rent -A -Car, appeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that the applicant has been working with the City concerning the traffic problems. Mr. Semling concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", Item Nos. 1 and 2, including the added condition as stated by Mr. Webb. He said that off- loading of vehicles would be done on -site. The subject sites are critical to support the airport and the services are beneficial to the City, the airport, and to Avis Rent-A-Car. The Fair Share Assessment Fee is associated with ' the quick turnaround project. The administrative facility is a small improvement, but if there are 310 automobiles going through the site creating 620 trips then it would be $121 per automobile or $71,000. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker explained that it is a one time fee that would be collected when the permit is issued. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Semling replied that Avis Rent -A -Car operations are currently located in Santa Ana. Mr. Semling stated that the City Traffic Engineer pointed out that the distance from the subject site to the airport would be shorter and quicker than from Santa Ana. Commissioner Di Sano stated that an automobile rental facility uses Campus Drive as an "air dry mode" of a car wash to the airport. He suggested that the Police Department be informed of the drivers going north on Campus Drive at high speed with just washed automobiles to the airport. Commissioner Di Sano commented that the subject site is an appropriate site for the subject use. -12 COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES M^ I n^& ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Semling stated that the Dove Street facility will include the corporate sales office consisting of the Regional Vice President, the District Manager, and staff and it is not just an automobile repair facility. He said that because Avis is concerned with their image that they will maintain the landscaping and they are remodeling the buildings. The employee parking area can be increased. Avis may consider customer sales on the site some time in the future. The majority of the rental car companies are doing business at the airport, and to bus a customer to the site to rem an automobile would be a disadvantage to their business. A six foot high screen wall is proposed at the quick turnaround facility on Dove Street. The wall would be constructed of split face masonry block and there would be some articulation in design There would be an encroachment of a 5 foot setback to make the site usable. The subject uses are permitted at the subject sites, and they are automobile related supporting the airport. In response to questions posed by IW Hewicker, Mr. Sending explained ' that the direction of the enclosed car wash is to enter the premises towards the airport and exits on to Campus Drive. The blowers are located at the exit of the car wash. Mr. Semling further replied that the majority of the car washing will be done during the day and he questioned if the noise would be noticeable based on the airport noise. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Semling replied that large trucks that would be delivering automobiles could go to the 848 Dove Street site where the truck could do a turnaround. Mr. Semling concurred that the driveway would have to be increased to allow for the trucks, and the applicant would agree with the landscape material and size that would be recommended by the City. Commissioner Brown asked if the applicant would agree to finishing two walls with stucco as opposed to split faced block, and only have signage on Dove Street and not on Jamboree Road. Acting Chairman Ridgeway suggested that the Planning Commission not design review the wall, and there is not an application for a sign to review. Commissioner Brown responded that it is in the Planning Commission's purview to discuss landscaping, walls, lighting, signage, given the sensitivity of the use. ' -13- COMMISSIONERS 0\<%NM6P0*501V 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Adams concurred that the material and frontage of the uses is within the Planning Commission's purview. Mr. Jeff Konen, Senior Project Manager representing Avis Rent -A -Car, Garden City, New York, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Konen stated that the applicant will work with the staff and the Planning Commission on the aesthetic issues concerning the landscaping, wall, and signage. He stated that the applicant would agree to either a stucco finish or a split face block finish wall, and the existing wood fence could be replaced in a manner that would be acceptable to everyone. The applicant could comply with the request not to have signage on Jamboree Road, and there would be minimal signage on Dove Street. Mr. Konen stated that the car wash is very quiet and the noise level outside the car wash bay would be acceptable. He said that the vacuums would be enclosed in a storage building. Mr. Konen concluded that inasmuch as there is a concern regarding the noise level on the site for their employees that the noise levels ' are mitigated from the car wash. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Hewicker explained that the sales counter could be used by Avis at their own discretion provided there was not a condition on the permit that would prohibit the customers from coming to the facility. Commissioner Adams and Mr. Hewicker pointed out that there are conflicting concerns between the traffic that would be generated by Avis, and requesting Avis to use the subject property as a point of sale to generate revenue. Ms. Temple stated that the Dove Street property did not require a traffic study because it is a similar or lessor use than the previous use. She agreed that compared to the proposed facility that the use may increase the traffic generation but overall the use would be far less than the previous use. Commissioner Adams concurred, and he said that there would not be a significant negative impact. Mr. Charles Sweigart, Avis Rent -A -Car, 4101 South Main Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Planning Commission as an Operations Manager. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Sweigart replied that Avis is only considering a counter at the Dove Street 1 -14- COMMISSIONERS • X99 ��O 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX site; that the automobiles are parked in Santa Ana; and that automobiles are serviced in Santa Ana and driven to a parking garage at the airport. Mr. Sweigart stated that a shuttle service is not being considered by Avis. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant would not have to come to the City for a sign pemrit so long as the signage did not exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Stan Hassan, attorney representing Donald R. Lawrence, property owner of 4201 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. W. Hassan stated that Mr. Lawrence supports the Avis Rent -A -Car facility. In response to the aforementioned letter from W. Frank Lawrenz, Mr. Hassan concurred that the issue is a civil matter. The property immediately to the north of the subject property has been approved by a use permit to National Car Rental and they are constructing a chain link ' fence between the properties. He questioned if there is a need for a wall against the chain link fence. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kranzley with respect to the Fair Share Fee, W. Webb explained that ten years ago the City did a survey of what it would cost to complete the City's Circulation Element buildout. The study was to consider the funding sources to determine if public funds would be adequate to complete the system. It was concluded that the City could only complete approximately 60 percent with projected City funding, funding from the State, Measure M, etc. The City Council determined that future development which would contribute to the major arterials around the community should also contribute towards the completion of the system. Staff determined how much money the City was short, and they projected the number of trips for new development. The two figures were divided and the result was approximately $121.00 per trip. The specific use of the revenue is for construction of roads. Commissioner Kranzley suggested that the Fair Share Fee be included in the staff reports, and Ms. Temple concurred. Mr. Hewicker emphasized that the Planning Commission has no authority to modify the fees. 1 -15- COMMISSIONERS Moti Ayes Abs( 4 T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T.._enl) ,nnc ROLL CALL INDEX Acting Chairman Ridgeway commented that Fiscal Analysis should only be done pursuant to Policy F -17 which addresses major projects, and he suggested that it be limited to major projects. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. .on Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3558 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Condition ent * No. 10 that the sign be eliminated on Jamboree Road. The motion flusher states that the applicant shall install mature landscaping and an aesthetically pleasing wall. MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is a secondary use in nature ' which may be considered as a support service allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element and the proposed project, under the circumstances of the particular use, would not be detrimental to the general welfare of the City. 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public 1 -16- COMMISSIONERS •9� ��vc'2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That the existing storm drain and water easements be shown on the site plan. 4. That sight distance be provided at the drive entrances in accordance with the City's sight distance standard 110 -L unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department, 5. That all vehicular access rights to Jamboree Road be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach prior to occupancy. 6. That the on -site drainage be collected and conveyed to the public storm drain or street as approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Disruption caused by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Jamboree Road right -of -way. 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 9. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor shall be submitted to be reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments. The plan shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view. COMMISSIONERS MO Ay Ab: 4 4 oG'�$i�v2T� 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan. 10. That signage shall be eliminated at Jamboree Road. tion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3557 and es * * * Traffic Study No. 105, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit sent * "A ", including added Condition No. 9 as previously stated. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is a secondary use in nature which may be considered as a support service allowed by the ' General Plan Land Use Element and the proposed project, under the circumstances of the particular use, would not be detrimental to the general welfare of the City 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -18- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 9' A � �F�9 '�09 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �ENh 0 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That the intersection of the private drives and streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour in accordance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the design the control gate at the entrance on Dove Street be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Fire Department. That the driveways be designed to handle fuel delivery vehicles. 5. That all unused drive approaches be removed and replaced with ' curb, gutter and sidewalk and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That the design of the on -site drainage be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 7. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor shall be submitted to be reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments. The plan shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view. ' -19- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r.._,, nn i nne ROLL INDEX CALL Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan. 9. Removal or delivery of the rental vehicles (using large trucks) shall be prohibited on the public streets surrounding the subject site. Use Permit No. 1905(Amended) &blic HearinM Agenda item No. 3 UP No. 1905 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of George's Camelot Restaurant with on -sale beer and wine and an outdoor eating area on property located in the RSC -H Approved District. The proposed amendment involves a request to change the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to allow the establishment of a valet parking service on the Via Oporto right -of -way ' in conjunction with the existing restaurant use. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 59 -17 (Resubdivision No. 416), located at 3420 Via Oporto, on the northeasterly side of Via Oporto, between Central Avenue and Via Lido, in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Walter Heim (George's Camelot Restaurant), Newport Beach OWNER: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear on behalf of the applicant, the public hearing:was closed at this time. -20- COMMISSIONERS 0\ �%via0mlak Mot Aye Abbe 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES nn Innc ROLL CALL INDEX ion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1905 8 " * (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". :nt * MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed change in the operational characteristics of the existing restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking exists to serve the subject restaurant. 4. That the design of the project or proposed improvements will not ' conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large or access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That the addition of valet parking will facilitate the use of the parking structure by restaurant patrons. 6. That the use of Via Oporto for curbside valet parking is acceptable inasmuch as it is not an arterial roadway and carves small volumes of traffic. 7. That the use of an existing loading zone for valet pick -up /drop -off area does not displace any public parking. 8. That the proposed valet area does not interrupt the traffic flow for Via Oporto. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) under the circumstances of this case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons ' -21 COMMISSIONERS 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 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. Condition : 1. That the subject project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1905 and 1905 (Amended), as approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1979, September 24, 1981, October 7, 1993 and November 10, 1994, respectively, shall be fulfilled. 3. That the design and operation of the valet parking shall be subject ' to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. Applicant shall provide a valet operating and signage plan for the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. Applicant shall be responsible for cost of installing all appropriate signage for the valet pick up /drop off area that is deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Applicant shall provide sufficient number of valet personnel so that the street or sidewalk is not blocked as patrons arrive at the restaurant. 7. A non - standard improvement agreement will be required to be executed with the Public Works department for the new canopy construction. The proposed location shown on the plans is in the public right -of -way. 8. That the valet parking service for the restaurant shall not be permitted after 9:00 p.m. -22- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL june 22, t995 INDEX 9. That the valet drop -off and pick -up area shall be limited to the yellow curb "delivery zone." 10. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building permits or the use of the expanded portion of the restaurant. 11. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use perniit, 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. 12. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the ' Newport Beach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1202 (Continued Public Hearing) agenda I No. 4 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the v 1202 allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed approved development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right - or -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said development also proposes to extend up to 12 feet with portions of the revised construction beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, and an additional 16± inches with a roof overhang; and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into ' -23- cem COMMISSIONERS • ��9f � X90 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES nn innc ROLL CALL INDEX said abandoned right -of -way. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. LOCATION: A portion of Block "D ", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midine of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: WR(2178) ' APPLICANT: Robert Losey, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to photographs that were taken to indicate that views had been opened up as a result of the revisions to the original plan. Convnissioner Brown addressed the letter from Mr. Joe DiPaola dated June 20, 1995. In response to the letter, Commissioner Brown explained that as he was walking to his automobile in the parking lot after he excused himself from an item that was scheduled prior to the subject variance during the June 8, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, he met W. And Mrs. Losey in the parking lot. Commissioner Brown stated that because Mr. and Mrs. Losey were not in attendance when the public hearing was scheduled the Planning Commission voted to continue the matter, and he stopped Mr. and Mrs. Losey to advise them the item had been continued for two weeks. Commissioner Brown also stated he spoke with Mr. Billings in the parking lot regarding Mr. Billings' concerns about the project. Commissioner Pomeroy responded to the letter inasmuch as he was also referred to in the letter. He said that Planning Commissioners -24- COMMISSIONERS \19 o9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � I&IIN111 IfSI.� ROLL CALL INDEX attempt to reach compromises when neighbors are impacted and for those purposes the Commissioners speak to the applicant and to the neighbors. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there is no conflict. The communications were as described and were proper. There would be no reason for the Commissioners to excuse themselves from voting on this matter on the basis of the communications. Acting Chairman Ridgeway pointed out that he previously met with many of the opposing neighbors and with the applicant. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, 1W Hewicker replied that no changes were made to the project since the applicant submitted plans for the June 8, 1995, Planning Commission meeting that was continued to the subject public hearing. The continued public hearing was reopened, and Mr. Robert Losey, 424 Goldenrod Avenue, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. ' Mr. Losey addressed the possibility of encroaching into the easement, and the possibility of mitigating Mr. Billings view as previously suggested by the Planning Commission. In reference to the encroachment he said there was too much potential for his family to be sued and the City could experience litigation. Mr. Losey distributed a photograph taken of the proposed roof line from Mr. Billings' second floor, he pointed out that one section of the roof was lowered up to 4 -1/2 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Losey explained that a civil engineer and surveyor determined the location to install the nine story poles. The story poles show top of height of maximum allowable buildable for each location, and then one foot down from the top. Shootings showed the height of the structure as it affected the poles and as it affected Mr. Phalen's and Mr. Billings' property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Brown, Mr. Losey described the revisions that were made to reduce the roofline. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant also moved the lower floor of the elevation along Bayside Drive. ' -25- COMMISSIONERS • ��9 <9 ��o9�9b 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL june 22, 197795 INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Losey explained that the photographs indicate where the structure could be built if it were constructed at the 10 foot setback on Bayside Drive, and the view impact from Bayside Drive. Commissioner Adams determined that the photographs indicate that the proposed structure appears to have a significantly less impact than if the structure would be built within the existing entitled envelope. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Losey explained that the red line drawn on the plan indicates the maximum allowable buildable based on current zoning, and the green line indicates the structure. Mr. Eric Mossman, architect for the applicant, 326 North Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mossman said that the drawing submitted by the engineer would determine the scale and size of the building. Commissioner Brown said that the photographs indicate that the proposed roof has approximately 1 -1/2 feet of error before it enters into the near foreground bay view. Mr. E. Baez, 2518 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to read a letter from Mr. Gaston Ortiz, 2516 and 2518 Bayside Drive stating his opposition to the variance. Mr. Baez concurred with Mr. Ortiz' letter that the variance would impact the views from Bayside Drive. Mr. Rick Smirl, 401 Femleaf Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smirl opposed W. Losey's comments regarding the easement, and the proposed project. Acting Chairman Ridgeway stated that the Public Works Department pulled the recorded documents that are related to Carnation Avenue from Seaview Avenue to Bayside Drive. He personally contacted two attorneys at Fast American Title Co. to discuss conceptually what could be accomplished. There are recorded easements for the benefit of properties on Carnation Avenue. Carnation Avenue from Seaview Avenue to Bayside Drive is a private street, and all of the easements that are recorded are for the benefit of the houses. Don Webb, ' -26- COMMISSIONERS •9�09����� 4 L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Public Works Director, explained that the upper area of Corona del Mar drains to the site, and the 10 inch sewer line runs down Carnation Street, down the slope, into Bayside Drive. At the top of the slope the sewer line is roughly 26 feet in the ground, and it was installed and reworked in 1962. There is a 6 foot wide easement, and the City does not want to have structures closer than the existing easement line on the basis that if repair work would be necessary to the line, a 26 foot trench could take more horizontal space than 6 feet. Should a structure encroach five to ten feet into the area it would be necessary for the foundation to be constructed to such a depth to allow the City to excavate to get to the sewer line. The sewer line serves several thousand houses. Mr. Smirl, Acting Chairman Ridgeway, and Mr. Webb discussed Mr. Smirl's concerns regarding the easement. Mr. Joe DiPaola, attorney, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Mr. Smirl, 401 Fernleaf Avenue. In response to a request for ' clarification, Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that 1V1r. DiPaola's letters dated June 9, 1995, and June 20, 1995, are part of the official record. Mr. DiPaola requested that the Planning Commission identify themselves if they had previous meetings with the applicant or the opposition. Acting Chairman Ridgeway stated that Ms. Clauson previously stated that any communication with any of the interested parties would be proper. In reference to Mr. DiPaola's letter dated June 20, 1995, he stated that the applicant should have known of the setback restrictions when he purchased the property. For the record, Mr. DiPaola read from California Real Estate Law and Practice, Vol. 8, Zoning and Land Use Control, that hardships that are self - induced cannot legally justify the granting of a variance. For example, a person who buys property or obtains an option to buy property with the anticipation of obtaining a variance, cannot obtain a variance based on the hardship that would result from the failure to obtain the variance. Similarly, an applicant cannot rely on the hardship cause when his/her sale of part of the subject property is left too small a parcel for the desired use. Mr. DiPaola addressed his concerns regarding the easement and the building envelope. -27- COMMISSIONERS 4\iWP0*50�\V1*\ 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r.._., nn i nnc ROLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Lila Crespin, 2600 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her opposition to the variance because it would block their view, depreciate the value of their property, and it would reduce the Crespins retirement income. In response to questions posed by Mrs. Crespin, Mr. Hewicker explained that there are regulations governing the locations and height of plantings within the front yard setbacks. He said that he was not aware of restrictions of tree height or the locations that trees could be planted on Bayside Drive. Mr. Hewicker said that the slopes generally have ground covers and shrubbery to hold the earth. W. Hewicker pointed out that if trees would be planted on Bayside Drive in the public right -of -way that it would require an Encroachment Permit from the City Council. Mr. Ross Billings, 314 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Billings stated that Mr. Losey removed the stairway but it did not constitute a six foot roof reduction. 1W Billings addressed his ' concerns regarding the easement, and the Carnation Avenue right -of -way. Mr. Bill Phelan, 317 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Phelan addressed the letter from Mr. J. E. Garrett, 313 Carnation Avenue, dated June 21, 1995, to the Planning Commission He expressed his concerns regarding the setbacks; the height of the structure, and the abandoned easement. Mr. Kent Moore, 2500 and 2502 Ocean Boulevard, appeared Before the Planning Commission. He referred to his letter dated June 2, 1995, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Moore discussed the similarities of the proposed project to the Quandt project at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Ms. Bea LaForce, 311 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. LaForce stated that Mr. Jim Garrett's letters dated June 8 and 21, 1995, explain his objections to the proposed project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Losey reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Losey replied that the roof height had been reduced by four feet. Acting Chairman Ridgeway ' -28- COMMISSIONERS 4 avl CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T..--" 700[ ROLL CALL INDEX asked Mr. Losey if the roof he of the main structure had been lowered whereby Mr. Losey replied that the roof line had not been lowered. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the City has a precedent to grant variances to property owners where unusual circumstances exist. There are private views that are being blocked by the subject structure, and the neighbors are opposing the project because their views would be blocked. The Planning Commission considers public views and not private views. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker addressed the encroachment into the setback along Carnation Avenue easement, and the fact that it would have a tendency to block a view if a person would be standing at the street end on Carnation Avenue and looking across Bayside Drive at Begonia Park. Staff previously suggested ' some modification in the structure as it would affect the public view from the end of Carnation Avenue. It is only public for the Carnation Avenue residents and the visitors to Carnation Avenue. Typically when public view is addressed, it is when a person is standing on a public right -of -way. He stated that Mr. Bob Bumham, City Attorney, previously indicated that the authority of the Planning Commission would be to address the issue of private view to the extent that a structure could diminish the value of properties in the immediate area and to the extent that it may contribute to a further decline in the value of the property and, therefore, deteriorate the neighborhood. Commissioner Di Sano stated that if Mr. Losey would build to the limit to his true property rights that would be much more than what he is asking for in the variance. There are instances when variances are necessary, and the Planning Commission is required to make a finding that a variance is allowed. Commissioner Di Sano opined that the subject variance is allowable. Commissioner Adams stated that the residents on Bayside Drive should be aware that Mr. Losey is proposing a structure that is less of a view ' -29- COMMISSIONERS 4 Mot Sul Moi Aye Noe Abe on Aye Ab: No 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9y F`O MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX impairment than what he is entitled to build. He determined that the variance would not have anything to do with an increase of view impairment in the corridor. The public view impairment would be minor at the end of Carnation Avenue, and there was not significant testimony regarding the loss of public view. Commissioner Brown stated that to enter into a 26 foot sewer line would require a surface area of approximately 50 to 55 feet wide. There were modifications made, however, suggestions were made that could have improved the project, i.e.: the mass of the house as it approaches the side yard of Mr. Phelan, and the guest room on top of the garage. He said that if the guest room would be reduced the structure would remain at approximately 3,400 square feet, or twice the buildable area. He suggested that if the guest room would be deleted above the garage that it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. 1 Commissioner Kranzley stated that the aforementioned photographs reflect a compelling argument that the house could be constructed to impair more views and the neighbors would be more concerned if the structure would be built within the building envelopes. :ion Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1202 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. >stitut Substitute motion was made and voted on to approve Variance No. 1202 :ion subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and an added =s * condition to eliminate the guest suite on top of the garage. SUBSTrrUTE zs * * * * MOTION FAILED. gent * crliial o i n Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ,s sent * FINDINGS: es_ 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, -30- L COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots in Corona del Mar. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises 40 % of the subject property. 3. That the granting of such application will not, 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 subject property ' 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. 4. That the irregularly shaped lot has less buildable area than other lots in Corona del Mar, since the site has two front yard setbacks and two rear yard setbacks which are more restrictive than other lots on the same block. 5. That the proposed development is designed to minimize the alterations of natural landforms along the bluff. 6. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. ' -31- COMMISSIONERS • �<C'99 y`0F90 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL , , INDEX 8. That the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the open space location requirement of the MFR District. 9. That the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue, and into the required rear yard setbacks will not, under the circumstances of this 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, inasmuch as the subject property is encumbered by unusual setback requirements and an abandoned right -of -way which is not included in the buildable area of the site. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and section, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed structure shall be limited to a maximum of 3,925± square feet of gross floor area (excluding 400 square feet for the two car garage). 3. That the proposed first floor balcony and the basement level family room shall be redesigned so as to maintain a 10 foot 6 inch setback from the Bayside Drive right -of -way. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That an additional 9 feet of easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the public along the Carnation Avenue frontage contiguous with the existing 6 foot sewer easement. This easement is necessary to provide for future maintenance of the existing sewer main. That there shall be no structural encroachments into the proposed easement unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 7. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That the Carnation Avenue street end be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement and that a standard street end guard rail be constructed to protect the motoring public and pedestrians with the design to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 10. That the stability of the slope along Bayside Drive and within the Bayside Drive right -of -way be stabilized in conformance with the recommendations of a Geological report and to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. That the geological report that determines areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits for construction or grading. 11. That the proposed retaining wall along Bayside Drive be redesigned as two (2) walls, one located approximately 4 feet behind existing sidewalk and the other wall located within the project property lines with a maximum slope of 2:1 behind each wall. The wall design shall be approved by the Public Works ' -33- COMMISSIONERS • F9h90 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T-.. 07 1000 ROLL CALL INDEX Department. That an Encroachment Agreement be executed by the owner for maintenance of the wall located in the public right -of -way and to hold the City harmless form any liability associated with the existence of the wall. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. That the Encroachment Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 12. That the owner execute a hold harmless agreement on the slopes within the Bayside Drive right -of -way. The agreement shall hold the City harmless from any existing or future slope failures. The form and content of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. That the Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. ' 13. That the slope along the Bayside Drive frontage be landscaped as approved by the Public Works Department, the City Grading Engineer and the General Services Department. 14. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 15. That a drainage study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. That the roof and site drainage be conveyed to Carnation Avenue or Bayside Drive in a manner approved by the City Grading Engineer and the Public Works Department. 16. That the location of the sewer lateral connection to the public sewer system be reviewed and approved by the Utilities department prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. 17. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. -34- COMMISSIONERS • 4�99y��90 O 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r.. -n� innc ROLL CALL INDEX 18. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 19. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 20. That driveway slopes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. ' 21. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 22. That the grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 23. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 24. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 25. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. -35- •gm� �ti�o9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9i � TO 4 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 26. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be famished to the Building Department. 27. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 28. That any proposed fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio and shall be subject to further review by the City Grading Engineer. 29. That any planned slope irrigation shall be controlled by an automatic system control device with an override keyed to continuous soil moisture measurement devices. The preparation and planting of the site slopes shall be designed by an experienced landscape planner, and all slopes shall be planted upon their completion and all planting must be maintained in growing condition for at least two years or until accepted by the Building Official. 30. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building or grading permits. 31. 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 • -36- COMMISSIONERS • � 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES tem ROLL INDEX CALL Amendment No. 824 (Continued Public Hearing) Agenda r No. 5 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to add or expand outdoor dining areas to restaurant uses upon A. stn application to the Planning Director; and to amend the offstreet parking Approved standards for restaurants, bars, and theater /nightclubs. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building, presented background information regarding the subject request. He pointed out that during the Planning Commission's discussion of the request in May, 1995, that the specialty food item would be deleted; that waiter service be provided in the outdoor dining area; and that the maximum square footage be raised from 500 square feet to 1,000 square feet. He ' said that the primary issue concerning outdoor restaurants is noise. James Hewicker, Planning Director, presented a slide show showing photographs of numerous restaurants throughout the City that currently have outdoor dining or may request outdoor dining some time in the future. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker replied that the restaurants providing outdoor dining currently have use permits. Mr. Hewicker explained that the purpose of the slide show was to demonstrate to the Planning Commission what to expect in the event the proposed Amendment would be approved and if the restaurant expansions would be approved by the Planning Director as opposed to the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Acting Chairman Ridgeway supported the recommendation of waiters as an added requirement. He stated that outdoor dining should be ' -37- tem 4 4 MINUTES 9,A� -cam g''c<�926ig9�y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �' Tnne 77 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX limited to 500 square feet inasmuch as additional parking is an important issue. Commissioner Adams stated that he had concerns that there would not be a permit review process that would involve the public. If the Planning Director approved an outdoor dining permit and there would be problems some time in the future then he would not be comfortable with the Director making the decision of whether the use should be reviewed or revoked. Commissioner Adams explained that he had concerns that the proposed Amendment would cheapen the policy that the Planning Commission previously had for the restaurants. He stated that he also had concerns that standard conditions would be imposed on the restaurant by the Planning Director. He suggested that the applications come before the Planning Commission, or the Planning Director forward the approved application to the Planning Commission to give the Commission the option to call up the application for a public ' hearing. Commissioner Adams referred to Section 20.72.018 (C) of the proposed Ordinance stating The decision of the Planning Director to approve or deny an application is final. and he questioned the legal implications. He stated that if heat lamps would be allowed in outdoor dining it could establish a permanent extension of a restaurant. Commissioner Adams stated that he supports the concept, and the current process may be more than is reasonable. He said that maybe parking and traffic requirements should not be imposed on the expansions. Commissioner Di Sano, Commissioner Pomeroy, and Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, discussed the concept of the Planning Commission reviewing restaurant applications following the Planning Director's action. Commissioner Pomeroy further stated that on any given day when the temperature is adequate that many patrons would prefer to eat outside as opposed to eating inside. He questioned if there would be a change in capacity. Commissioner Brown suggested that Section 20.72.018 A (4) could be amended to state Roof coverings shall be seasonal in nature, i.e. shade ' -38- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T.1.,o11) iooc ROLL CALL INDEX umbrellas, retractable canvas awnings, and not have the affect of creating a permanent enclosure. He further suggested that (5) be amended to state Fences, walls, or similar barriers used to enclose the outdoor dining areas shall serve to define the dining area and not constitute a permanent all-weather enclosure. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Commissioner Brown stated that the Economic Development Committee was of the opinion that the original language in the foregoing Section was too limited. The modifications broadened the language to include seasonal in nature, and the outdoor dining would not have the affect of permanent enclosure. He said that the intent is not to approve a permanent expansion of a restaurant. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mr. Delino explained that the Daily Grill would be considered fast food because of the SIC Code. He stated that the classifications come from the State Board of Equalization, as opposed to the City's Zoning classification. If waiters would be used for outdoor dining then the restaurant would be allowed to expand 25 percent or 1,000 square feet under the proposed Amendment. Ms. Clauson stated that it was the opinion of a statement previously made by Chairman Gifford that waiter service would upgrade the quality of outdoor dining. In response to comments by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Ms. Clauson pointed out that 1,000 square feet is a cap for outdoor dining or it is limited to 25 percent of the interior net public area. He stated that the original intent of the Amendment to allow outdoor dining was to take advantage of the summer months, and he opposed the permanent expansion of restaurants. He addressed the Planning Commission's policy to approve restaurants and the proposal would approve carte blanche the entire process. He supported the use for three months, and if the restaurant wanted permanent outdoor dining then they would be required to apply for a use permit. -39 COMMISSIONERS • 9��9��yNc<o90 • mo Ay e Ab CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ,,,,,r ROLL CALL I INDEX Commissioner Kranzley stated that it is feasible that outdoor dining could prove to be financially successful, and he commented that the City should encourage restaurant owners to expand their business. Acting Chairman Ridgeway addressed his concerns regarding traffic and parking problems if the restaurants would be permanently expanded. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that 500 square feet for outdoor dining is appropriate; that he supported Commissioner Brown's amendments to the Ordinance; and there should be a period of time that the permit can be appealed or recalled by the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and Mr. Delino regarding the feasibility of permit review by the Planning Commission following the Planning Director's action, and a 14 day time frame for the Planning Commission to call up the application. Mr. Hewicker stated that the proposed Amendment states that the Planning Director could revoke a permit if the restaurant did not comply with all of the conditions, and he further suggested that the Planning Director could also be allowed to call up a permit for modification if after approval there is a problem. Commissioner Adams concurred. COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX c.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None e.) Requests for excused absences - Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Pomeroy from the July 6, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. r *� ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 p.m. A Adj ourn