Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1988REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONERS PLACE: City Council Chambers MINUTES TIME: 7:30 p.m. %A "� %�F� DATE: July 7, 1988 m ' .09 yr NZ10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * Chairman Pers6n was absent. Absent EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Election Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue the Election of of A es * * * * * * Officers to the September 22, 1988, Planning Commission Officers nt * meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of June 23, 1988: Minutes of June 23, Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the June 23, 1988 Ayes * * * * * * 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director,' stated that the Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 1, 1988, in front of City Hall. • -1- COMMISSIONERS y oF$d q° �t^0 July 7, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 871 (Public Hearine) Item No.l Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single R871 parcel of land for a two unit residential condominium development on property located in the R -3 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 9, Block 18, Eastside Addition to the Balboa Tract, located at 1119 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard, between C Street and D Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Steve McCluer, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Costa Mesa William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to • Exhibit "A ", Condition No. 9, in the staff report, and requested that said condition be amended to state "..prior to building permits being finaled, and that these corners be clearly visible to the owner and prospective buyers." Mr. Laycock explained that "prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits" be deleted inasmuch as the Building Department does not issue occupancy permits for residential units. Mr. Todd Schooler, Architect, 503 - 32nd Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Schooler requested an explanation of Condition No. 5 which states "that the parking layout and site access shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer." Mr. Webb explained that in addition to the Grading Engineer approving the plans, that the Traffic Engineer has requested approval of the parking layout inasmuch as the parking is proposed below grade. Mr. Schooler referred to Condition No. 8 which states "that the area between the front property line and the East Ocean Front sidewalk be filled in with standard concrete sidewalk, and that no walls, planters or other improvements be installed in the public right -of -way without first obtaining a City Council approved • Encroachment Permit.. ", and he asked if the applicant is required to go through the City Council for said Encroachment Permit? Mr. Webb explained that the Encroachment Permit that is obtained through the Public -2 COMMISSIONERS y o�g %4' 0 July 7, 1988 q}, 11' `0 1° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9� MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Works Department is for the installation of sidewalks, and if the applicant requests more than flat concrete then the applicant is required to go to the City Council for said Permit. In further reference to Condition No. 8 which states "..and that prospective buyers be informed of this requirement. ", Mr. Schooler asked how prospective buyers can be informed of said requirement. Mr. Webb explained that property owners have assumed that they are permitted to make the same improvements as their neighbors who have made the improvements illegally between their front property lines and the East Ocean Front sidewalk, and that the condition would make certain that everyone knows that there are restrictions on the public right -of -way. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the type of document required so as to provide future property owners information regarding the foregoing Condition No. 8. The documents suggested included Deed of Trust, seller's disclosure, a note on the parcel map, and CC&R's. Mr. Schooler explained that the Condominium Association must approve a property owner's remodel of one of the condominium dwelling units inasmuch as at least two property owners jointly own the property. Acting Chairman Pomeroy suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the type of recorded document best qualified as a future Discussion Item at a future Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Schooler concurred that the condition could be included as a covenant in the Association's CC&R's. In response to a question posed by Mr. Schooler, Mr. Hewicker explained that the property owners would be put on notice that the area between the front property line and the back of sidewalk is public property, and that prior to any improvement other than a concrete sidewalk on said strip of land, they would have to obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Council. Mr. Schooler stated that the applicant concurs with the amended findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 871 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including Assistant City Attorney Korade's recommendation that Condition No. 8 be amended to state "That a document be recorded insuring that the area between the front property, etc... ", and modified Condition No. 9 as suggested by staff. The maker of the motion -3- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 Py� .may CC �o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX affirmatively responded to Commissioner Koppelman's request that Condition No. 8 further state that the document be recorded "to the satisfaction of the City Ayes * * * * * * Attorney and the City Engineer." Motion was voted on, Absent * MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That the area between the front property line and the East Ocean Front sidewalk is public right -of- way that cannot be exclusively used without City Council approval. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. The parcel map shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior • to issuance of any building permits. 5. That the parking layout and site access shall be approved by.the City Traffic Engineer. -4- COMMISSIONERS Zq .o0�°oO,mo�m July 7, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 92 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 8. That a document shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Engineer, insuring that the area between the front property line and the East Ocean Front sidewalk be filled in with standard concrete sidewalk, and that no walls, planters or other improvements be installed in the public right -of -way without first obtaining a City Council approved Encroachment Permit, and that prospective buyers be informed of this requirement. 9. That the front property corners be installed and clearly marked to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments prior to the issuance of building permits and prior to the building permits being finaled, and that these corners be clearly visible to the owner and prospective buyers. 10. That park dedication fees for two dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 11. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. -5- COMMISSIONERS O July 7, 1988 �G 9N �y'0o 9 9s 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 872 Item No.2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single 8672 parcel of land for a two family residential condominium . development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 59, Ocean Front Tract, located at 5907 Seashore Drive, between 59th Street and 60th Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Steve McCluer, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Costa Mesa Staff requested that Condition No. 8 be amended to state "That a document shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Engineer insuring that the area.." and No. 9 be amended to state "..prior to building permits being finaled, and that these corners.. ". Discussion of said conditions occurred during the public hearing of Resubdivision No. 871, and subsequently said conditions were amended in the subject application and Resubdivision No. 873 inasmuch as Mr. McCluer is the applicant to all three resubdivisions. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Schooler stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and the aforementioned amended Conditions No. 8 and No. 9. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Schooler replied that the subject project will be completed by Spring, 1989. Mr. Dale Kellogg, 28 Balboa Coves, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is the present owner of the subject property, and that he is currently in escrow with the applicant regarding the subject property. In response to his concerns regarding the effective date of the proposed project, Acting Chairman Pomeroy and James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained • that the subject resubdivision does not become a legal document until it is recorded, and that it cannot be recorded by anyone other than the property owner. -6- COMMISSIONERS 'AAA ;�CrG July 7, 1988 �� F9 F� °AA 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 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 approve Resubdivision Ayes * * * * * No. 872 subject to the findings and conditions in Absent * Exhibit "A ", including the foregoing amended Conditions No. 8 and No. 9. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no • problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That the area oceanward of the front property line is public beach that cannot be exclusively used without a permit from the appropriate public agency. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. The parcel map shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. • 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. -7- COMMISSIONERS �o?��p.� July 7, 1988 �! 9 mG 9N 9� Z � �y A* `` Ivk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the parking layout and site access shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 8. That a document shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Engineer, insuring that no improvements or landscaping be constructed, installed or placed on the beach sand oceanward of the front property line without first obtaining a City Council approved Encroachment Permit, and that prospective buyers be informed of this requirement. • 9. That the front property corners be installed and clearly marked to the satisfaction of the Building and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of building permits and prior to the building permits being finaled, and that these corners be clearly visible to the owner and prospective buyers. 10. That park dedication fees for two dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 11. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. • -8- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 873 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single 8873 parcel of land for a two unit residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 59, Ocean Front Tract, located at 5905 Seashore Drive, on the southerly side of Seashore Drive, between 59th Street and 60th Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Steve McCluer, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Costa Mesa Staff requested that Condition No. 8 be amended to state "That a document shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Engineer insuring that the area.. ", and Condition No. 9 be amended to state "..prior to building permits being finaled, and that these corners.. ". Discussion of said conditions occurred during the Resubdivision No. 871, public hearing, and subsequently said conditions were amended in Resubdivision'No. 872 and the subject resubdivision inasmuch as Mr. McCluer is the applicant in the three resubdivisions. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Schooler concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Conditions No. 8 and No. 9 as recommended by staff. 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 approve Resubdivision Ayes * * * * * * No. 873 subject to the findings and conditions in Absent * Exhibit "A ", including amended Conditions No. 8 and No. 9. MOTION CARRIED. • -9- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 qy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map.Act. 5. That the area oceanward of the front property line is public beach that cannot be exclusively used • without a permit from the appropriate public agency. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. The parcel map shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department, 3. That each dwelling be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance.of any building permits. 5. That the parking layout and site access shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory • completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public -10- COMMISSIONERS .off ; %4 a0 � July 7, 1988 9 �a oy C C yo s ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX improvements. 7. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 8. That a document shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Engineer, insuring that no improvements or landscaping be constructed, installed or placed on the beach sand oceanward of the front property line without first obtaining a City Council approved Encroachment Permit, and that prospective buyers shall be informed of this requirement. 9. That the front property corners be installed and clearly marked to the satisfaction of the Building and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of building permits and prior to the building permits being finaled, and that these corners be clearly visible to the owner and prospective buyers. • 10. That park dedication fees for two dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 11. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. -11- COMMISSIONERS A A ; a• °� July 7, 1988 y d` c^oAS � �G 9w �y .o •� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Exception Permit No. 32 (Continued Public Hearing Item No.4 Request to permit the continued use of an existing EP No. 32 freestanding sign located at the northwesterly corner of Lafayette Avenue and Villa Way which is used as an off - Denied site sign to identify a nearby commercial use located within the interior area of Cannery Village. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the existing sign to continue to encroach approximately 4 feet into a required 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to Lafayette Avenue. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 325, Lancaster's Addition, located at 2800 Villa Way, on the northeasterly corner of Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue, within the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANTS: Louise Capper and Linda Lee, Newport • Beach OWNER: Jim McCollough, Newport Beach There being no one to appear on behalf of the applicant or to testify during the public hearing, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated that the testimony during the June 23, 1988, public hearing regarding the subject item showed that the sign was for the purpose of advertising rather than designating the parking area. Motion x Motion was made to deny Exception Permit No. 32 subject to the findings in Exhibit "B. Commissioner Winburn stated that the subject item was continued to allow the applicant additional time so as to return to the Planning Commission with a parking agreement from the property owner to permit a parking sign on the site. She stated that she would support the motion to deny. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff spoke to the applicant prior to the subject public hearing, wherein she stated that the property owner was not available to obtain his signature to authorize the • parking spaces. Acting Chairman Pomeroy asked if the applicant could come back with another Exception Permit? -12- COMMISSIONERS a A; f crow July 7, 1488 yo.r`^4�m� �y `y �9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Laycock explained that the Planning Commission could approve Exhibit "A" inasmuch as there is a condition that requests that the applicant provide a written acknowledgement of the off - street parking spaces. He stated that a recommended condition in Exhibit "A" provides that the existing sign would have to be removed and a smaller sign would have to be erected in its place, provided the applicant obtained a letter from the property owner to utilize the parking area. Acting Chairman Pomeroy asked if the fee could be waived? Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the City Council is the only body that is authorized to waive the fee. Commissioner Di Sano asked if the applicant requested a continuance? Mr. Laycock explained that he did not speak with the applicant personally; however, the application could be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion to deny. Commissioner Debay stated that considering the conditions in Exhibit "A" regarding the off -site parking agreement and a smaller sign are conditions that the Substitute Planning Commission had previously requested, substitute Motion * motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. 32 Ayes * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Noes * * * * Motion was voted on, MOTION DENIED. Absent Ayes * * * * * Motion to deny Exception Permit No. 32 subject to the Noes * findings in Exhibit "B" was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of this exception permit is not necessary to protect a substantial property right of the property owner or the applicants inasmuch as the existing use of the property could continue and all uses provided for the "Retail and Service Commercial" portion of the SP -6 District would continue to be permitted. Further, the hair salon at 2817 Villa Way is permitted on -site signs consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 2. That the proposed off -site sign will be contrary to • the purpose of the Sign Ordinance. 3. That the proposed off -site sign will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and -13- COMMISSIONERS 2A OF�i^�o N m July 7, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 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 inasmuch as a precedent would be established for similar signs elsewhere in the City, leading to an overall degradation in the visual quality of the City. Use Permit No. 3315 (Continued Public Hearing Item No.S Request to permit the construction of two residential UP3315 dwelling units which exceed the basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District on property Approved located in the "Retail Service Commercial Area" of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the second and third floor portions of the building to encroach 5 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley; and to allow the use of a compact parking space for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 95 -2, (Resubdivision No. 528), located at 508 29th Street, on the southeasterly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Jerry Adams, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant In response to, a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding revised Condition No. 12, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that there would not be a sufficient area adjacent to the three foot concrete wall adjacent to 29th Street to plant landscaping. Mr. Jeff Chamley appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, • the public hearing was closed at this time. -14- COMMISSIONERS o July 7, 1988 \V\C'S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3315 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including staff's revised Conditions No. 1 regarding the revised plans approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 7, 1988, and No. 12 regarding the existing side yard wall adjacent to 29th Street that shall be modified to provide a clear see - through material for any portion of the wall in excess of 3 feet in height. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would not support the motion inasmuch as the structure is too massive for the site. Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3315 Noes * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", Absent * including revised Conditions No. 1 and No. 12. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted 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. Adequate off- street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. That the increased building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit inasmuch as the proposed structure is to be located on the rear of the site and the property will maintain a front setback of approximately 55 feet across 46 percent of the site frontage. 5. That the increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. • 6. That the increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being -15- COMMISSIONERS O o�sFB July 7, 1988 BG ?B 9B �yyy� 9a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 7. That the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 8. The approval of Use permit No. 3315 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 modifications to allow the second and third floor encroachments into the required rear yard setback adjacent to an alley and the use of a compact parking space for a portion of the required off - street parking is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: • 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 7, 1988. 2. That the four parking spaces utilizing the tandem configuration shall be used by the proposed residential uses and that two parking spaces (i.e. one tandem space and the accessible space to the rear of said tandem space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That only one compact parking space shall be permitted. 4. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the three commercial parking spaces located adjacent to the alley shall be open to the alley except that said parking spaces may be enclosed with metal grates or other similar enclosure of an open nature. 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from 29th Street, the alley and -16- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 G� 90 oy C C a0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX adjoining properties. 7. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. That each . dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That the existing side yard fence shall be removed from the required 10 foot setback adjacent to the alley. • 12. That the existing side yard wall located adjacent to the proposed parking spaces adjacent to 29th Street, shall be modified so as to provide within the front 10 feet of the subject property, a clear see - through material for any portion of the wall in excess of 3 feet in height. Said modification of the wall shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 13. That the utility pole in the alley shall be removed and the utilities undergrounded. 14. That a handicapped parking space shall be provided unless otherwise provided by the Building Department. Said parking space, if required, shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking space shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for the handicapped space. 15. 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. -17- COMMISSIONERS A July 7, 1988 \0A1 r � 0 P m ` �q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3318 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling UP3318 unit (Granny Unit) on property located in the P -C District in Big Canyon. Said proposal is in accordance Continued with the provisions of Section 65852.1 of the California to Government Code that permits a second dwelling if said 8 -4-88 residence is intended for one or two persons who are 60 years of age or over. LOCATION: Lot 54, Tract No. 7223, located at 27 Pinehurst Lane, at the southwesterly terminus of Pinehurst Lane southerly of Royal Saint George Road in Big Canyon. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Dr. Paul M. Johnson, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Koppelman referred to the plans submitted • by the applicant indicating a pool house, and she requested to know the difference between a pool house and a Granny Unit, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that during plan check for the pool house, staff would have requested that either the full bath, separate access, or the cooking area be eliminated inasmuch as the proposed pool house could have been considered a second dwelling unit on the site. Commissioner Debay stated that she contacted the President of the Big Canyon Homeowner's Association because Condition No. 4 requests that the second dwelling unit shall be for rental purposes only. She explained that the Big Canyon Homeowner's Association CC&R's do not permit second units on a lot to be rented; however, she was informed that the applicant assured said Association that the unit will not be for rent. Mr. Hewicker replied "rental as opposed to for sale ". He explained that the unit could either be rented; or occupied with a family member, in which case it would not be considered a second dwelling unit. Mr. Hewicker stated that a separate detached or an attached unit would not be allowed if there would be cooking and sanitation facilities, and an outside access. Mr. • Hewicker explained that the State of California allows second dwelling units and Granny Units on lots for single family dwellings, either subject to an Ordinance or subject to a Use Permit. He said that the City could -18- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 yd�9N9�.o9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX adopt an Ordinance prohibiting second dwelling units if they could make a finding regarding congestion, etc.; however; that would be unlikely inasmuch as there have been many discussions during the past few years regarding the City's General Plan, the Housing Element, and the City's goals to provide housing opportunities for all members of the community. Mr. Hewicker emphasized that the unit is intended to be used as a Granny Unit that will be occupied by a member of the family where no one will be charged rent. He said that the intent of the condition is not to require the father -in -law to pay rent. In response to Acting Chairman Pomeroy's statement regarding a pool house, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Zoning Code will only allow one dwelling unit zoned for single family purposes, and if the property owner requests a second unit they would be required to identify the unit as a second dwelling unit or as a Granny Unit. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman . regarding the enforcement of a Granny Unit when the property sells, Mr. Hewicker explained that the unit could be occupied by any member of the family who owns the property, or it could be rented out as a Granny Unit. Discussion ensued how the Granny Unit could be governed to be assured that said unit would be occupied by an individual 60 years of age or older. Discussion ensued between Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Commissioner Debay, and Assistant City Attorney Korade regarding State regulations pertaining to Granny Units, CC&R's, and setting a precedent in the City. Commissioner Debay suggested that Granny Units be set for a future discussion item, and she requested that Condition No. 4 stating "that the second dwelling unit shall be for rental purposes only.." be clarified. Mr. Hewicker explained that the purpose of the condition is to preclude the idea that the unit could be sold as a separate dwelling unit. Commissioner Di Sano concurred that Granny Units should be considered for a future discussion item. Acting Chairman Pomeroy commented that use permits police . Granny Units. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 595 (Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance), and the City Council opted to disallow the Ordinance, and to require the use permit process for -19- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 99 `gym �- �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX each second dwelling unit or Granny Unit. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Dr. Paul Johnson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Johnson stated that the proposed Granny Unit would be used by his father -in -law, and that the unit would be constructed on the top of the garage. Dr. Johnson stated that he had originally applied for a pool house because he did not know that a second dwelling unit could be constructed on the property. He referred to the Big Canyon Homeowner's Association CC&R's and he questioned the required two garage spaces for each dwelling unit as stated in Condition No. 3 in Exhibit "A ". He stated that a four car garage would not be aesthetically pleasing to the area. Dr. Johnson stated that the adjoining neighbors approve the proposed dwelling unit. In reference to Exhibit "B ", findings to deny the use permit, Dr. Johnson referred to Finding No. 2 and he questioned the reference to the Granny Unit setting a precedent inasmuch as the Planning Commission has the • opportunity to act on each use permit application. In reference to Finding No. 3 in Exhibit "B ", Dr. Johnson stated that the Granny Unit would not be detrimental to the area inasmuch as the subject property is at the end of a cul -de -sac where there is no traffic, and that the dwelling unit would not be seen inasmuch as said unit would blend in architecturally with the area. In reference to the State Zoning Law, Dr. Johnson read from the staff report "..city and county may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling unit to be constructed,.. ", and he commented that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over the Big Canyon Homeowner's Association CC&R's. He suggested that he would apply for a variance to allow him to keep a three car garage, and to build the Granny Unit on the second floor. Ms. Korade explained that the use permit can be granted even if the application is contrary to said Association's CC&R's that are currently in Big Canyon; however, if the application violates the CC&R's the applicant would have to answer to said Association. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Dr. Johnson concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of the foregoing Condition No. 3. 20- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 7.988 92 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker referred to the two garage spaces required for the second dwelling unit, and he stated that at the time the Planned Community Development Plan for Big Canyon was adopted, no one could foresee that the State would adopt a law requiring cities to allow second dwelling units or Granny Units. He further stated that the Planned Community Development Standards for Big Canyon require two garage spaces for each dwelling unit; however, the Planning Commission does not have a variance request to waive the fourth garage space. He suggested that the Planning Commission could consider either approving Exhibit "A" as recommended, or continue said use permit so as to readvertise the variance. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Laycock replied that previous Granny Units have required a total of three parking spaces inasmuch as other areas throughout the City require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Koppelman and Dr. Johnson regarding the proposed stairway for the Granny • Unit as opposed to an elevator. Dr. Johnson stated that only a member of the family would occupy the unit, or the unit would be used in the future as an extra room. He suggested that this could be a condition to the use permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay commented that Big Canyon Homeowner's Association has no objection to the application and that there has been no negative input from the neighbors. Commissioner Di Sano recommended that the use permit be continued to allow the applicant time to apply for a variance to waive the required fourth garage space. Acting Chairman Pomeroy stated that it is illogical to require two parking spaces for a granny unit. The public hearing was reopened at this time. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Dr. Johnson stated that he would agree to a continuation for thirty days to apply for a variance. The hearing was closed at this time. public -21- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 d 9s9,oypy 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. Ayes * * * * * * 3318 to the August 4, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Absent * MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. t Use Permit No 1942 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing Item No.7 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted a change in operational characteristics of an UP1942(A) existing Coco's Restaurant in the C -1 District so as to add the incidental service of on -sale beer and wine. Continued The proposed amendment includes a request to change the to facility to a 24 hour coffee shop whereas the existing August 4, use permit limits the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. 1988 to 11:00 p.m daily. The proposed amendment also involves a request to delete the previously established • Condition No. 1, that required that a recorded off -site parking agreement be approved by the City Council guaranteeing that a minimum of 23 parking spaces be provided for the restaurant use on property located at 2239 -2247 East Coast Highway. The proposal also includes exceptions to the Sign Code so as to permit an off -site restaurant identification sign on a parking lot site located at 2239 -2247 East Coast Highway, and two roof signs. This application does not propose to increase the "net public area" of the restaurant. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block A, Tract No. 470, located at 2305 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of Acacia Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Grace Restaurant Company, Irvine OWNER: Martin A. Mangold, Trustee, Corona del Mar In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, concurred that the property owner owns the subject site and the off -site parking lot, and that the applicants are not requesting to eliminate the off -site parking. He -22- COMMISSIONERS ° °t^ July 7, 1988 c ao 9��n9o9k CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX concurred that the applicants do not want to record the off -site parking agreement. Mr. Laycock referred to the staff report, Exhibit "A ", and requested that the sentence "Said lot shall provide at least 23 parking spaces for the restaurant use. ", be deleted from Finding No. 7, and added to Condition No. 7, and that said sentence also be added to Condition No. 7 in Exhibit "B ". Mr. Laycock stated that the City Attorney's Office has referred to Conditions No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 8, and No. 9 i Exhibit "B ", and requested that said conditions be deleted inasmuch as said conditions cannot be required because Exhibit "B" only pertains to the elimination of recording of the off -site parking agreement; however, said conditions should remain in Exhibit "A" inasmuch as the conditions would pertain to the applicant's request for additional operating hours. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Randy Hiatt, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. stated . .Hiatt that the applicants are operating 13 restaurants in Newport Beach, and that they have operated the subject restaurant for 40 years. He further stated that the applicants have currently signed a new lease option, and that they are investing $400,000.00 in improvements to bring the building up to current standards and to redecorate the restaurant into a new concept. He explained that they have evaluated the current concept and the economics no longer work in the smaller building. Mr. Hiatt stated that the applicants are requesting a new restaurant, Edie's Diner, that would be similar to the restaurant currently operating in Marina del Rey that is operating 24 hours a day. He addressed a survey of customer comments that the applicants commissioned which indicated they are in favor of the new concept. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Hiatt 'stated that the applicants concur with the suggested findings and conditions in Exhibit "A In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hiatt explained that Edie's Diner emphasizes a restaurant that is an American style family diner, including a juke box at each table and a master juke box. He explained that the sound system is totally confined to the interior of the building. -23 COMMISSIONERS July 7 , 1988 2�G� ��"�P9pA m � 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hiatt explained that the operation at Coco's Restaurant at Irvine Avenue and 17th Street is successful as it currently exists, He said that the applicants are aware of the community's sentiment regarding the subject application. Mr. Hiatt explained that Edie's Diner in Marina del Rey is a controlled environment, and that they have been able to control the noise level. He stated that the restaurant is adjacent to houseboats, and that there have been no complaints from the residents living in the houseboats. In response to questions regarding the off -site parking lot when the customers leave and arrive, Mr. Hiatt replied that the applicants are proposing to upgrade and to supervise the parking lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Hiatt replied that if the applicants were required to change their proposal from a 24 hour operation, that there would be a change in the economics of the restaurant. He explained that 12 percent to 15 percent of their business is proposed to be during the overnight • period. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hiatt explained that 600 customers a week are proposed between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and that the major portion of the customers at the Marina del Rey restaurant are from 12:00 midnight until 2:00 a.m. Mr. David Dill, 704 Acacia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the subject use permit. Mr. Dill referred to a memo that he distributed to the neighbors dated June 20, 1988, his letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated July 5, 1988, and photographs depicting the number of automobiles and trash in the off -site parking lot. Mr. Dill stated that his concerns include security for his small children; that Coco's Restaurant is separated from the residents by just a fence; the traffic noise from the employees of adjacent restaurants; the required off -site parking agreement; that the sign would increase traffic; and that the service of beer and wine be discontinued until the applicants have complied with recording the off -site parking agreement. Discussion ensued between Acting Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Dill regarding the off -site parking agreement, and the condition that was attached to Use Permit No. 1942 requiring a recorded parking agreement. Mr. Hewicker • explained that one reason why the off -site parking agreement was not recorded is that it has been the -24- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX policy of the City Attorney's Office that where the properties are under the same ownership, an off -site parking agreement is not required. He explained that if the operator of the business would lose the right to the off -site parking lot, they would have to close the business down, find new parking that would meet the requirement, or come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker further stated that if a Building Permit is requested for the lot where off -site parking is located, the Planning Department would also be notified of the loss of parking. Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Dill discussed the off - site parking lot as it was photographed on June 25, 1988, 8:00 p.m. and Commissioner Koppelman questioned if said parking in the lot was directly related to Coco's Restaurant inasmuch as there are numerous restaurants in the area in addition to the adjacent liquor store. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Dill discussed the photograph indicating the parking bumper adjacent to the block wall, and the quantity of litter in the area. • Mr. Tim Taylor, 701 Acacia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed 24 hour restaurant operation located in an area that is attempting to maintain a village atmosphere. He stated that the signs would attract more traffic, and that there would be additional noise from the traffic. He further stated that it is impossible to make a left turn onto East Coast Highway from Acacia Avenue, and that motorists would be driving through the neighborhood for access to travel west on East Coast Highway. Mr. Taylor commented on the.amount of litter that is in the parking lot. Mrs. Helen Foster, 617 Acacia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the 24 hour restaurant operation because of the potential increase in traffic, and motorists travelling through the neighborhood. Mrs. Elizabeth Barron, 709 Begonia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the 24 hour restaurant operation. She questioned if there would be enough customers after 9:30 p.m. to keep the restaurant open; that the restaurant's extended hours would affect the quality of life in Corona del Mar; that there would be an increase in noise and trash; that currently before 8:00 a.m. dumpsters and delivery trucks appear in the neighborhood; and that a late hour operation would bring -25- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 �9aoyf C o ti ` X92 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX in transients which could endanger the security of the neighborhood. Mrs. Lila Crespin, 707 Begonia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the 24 hour restaurant operation. She referred to her letter of June 24, 1988, including signatures of two of her neighbors. Mrs. Crespin emphasized the importance to maintain the quality of life in Corona del Mar; parking; that the divided East Coast Highway has made it impossible to make a left turn from Acacia Avenue; the increase in traffic through the neighborhood; that the dumpsters arrive at the restaurant about 6:30 a.m. each morning; and that Marina del Rey is not the same type of neighborhood as Corona del Mar. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mrs. Crespin supported the restaurant's current operating hours. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Pomeroy, Mrs. Crespin stated that Edie's Diner in Marina del Rey has a nice environment; however, she was not in favor of the juke box music. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the 24 hour restaurant operation. Mr. Nichols referred to the necessity of the off -site parking agreement that was required in conjunction with the approval to sell beer and wine. He questioned where the restaurant would obtain 23 parking spaces if the property owner developed the parking lot where said parking spaces currently exist. He referred to the center median on East Coast Highway that prohibits motorists from making left turns, and the numerous neon signs throughout Corona del Mar. Mr. Nichols stated that the restaurants currently open until 2:00 a.m. have been "grandfathered ", and that any restaurant open after 11:00 p.m. causes problems. Mr. Hewicker stated that the granting of the beer and wine license was approved in conjunction with the off- site parking spaces, and if the restaurant loses the use of the off -site parking lot, then the restaurant would be unable to sell beer and wine. Mrs. Linda Fassero, 706 Acacia Avenue, business partner at Rothschild's Restaurant, appeared before the Planning Commission also on behalf of Rothschild's. Mrs. Fassero stated that Rothschild's Restaurant has been successful • by closing at 10 :00 p.m., and that the proposed restaurant can be economically successful if they closed at 12:00 midnight. She referred to the parking lot -26- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX noise, and she concurred with the previous opposing testimony. Mr. Bill Boger, representing Restaurant Enterprises, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. He explained that Coco's Restaurant gave up its lease when it expired in February, 1987, because of a rent increase; but because of the community's insistence that the restaurant remain open, the applicants came up with the concept of Edie's Diner. He stated that there is no intent to disrupt the quality of life in Corona del Mar; that the restaurant should not be responsible for the trash in the parking lot inasmuch as it is not a take -out restaurant; that the liquor store is a major user of the parking lot; that there have been conflicts in previous statements inasmuch as neighbors have stated that Coco's Restaurant is quiet after 9:30 p.m. and neighbors have spoken regarding the parking lot noise very late at night; that there have not been any complaints from the Police Department since the beer and wine use permit was approved in 1980; that the applicants generate over $25,000,000.00 in volume . for the City; and they total over 1,000 employees in the 13 restaurants. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Boger replied that 12 employees will be employed during the evening operating hours, and that they will park in the parking lot. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Boger replied that the parking spaces adjacent to the block wall are privately controlled by the adjacent medical offices; that the major portion of the litter in the parking lot comes from the liquor store traffic; that future parking lot traffic will be restricted and controlled; and that the liquor store does not have a lease to use the subject parking lot, but their customers park in said parking lot without permission of the restaurant or the property owner. Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Boger discussed methods that could be used to control the egress /ingress of the parking lot. Mr. Ben Cagle, Vice President of Restaurant Enterprises, • appeared before the Planning Commission, and he emphasized that the operators of the restaurant are local residents who are interested in the community. He stated that it must be economically feasible for the -27- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX applicants to operate the restaurant. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding conditions that have been imposed on restaurants regarding sound, Mr. Hewicker explained that conditions have only pertained to amplified music and live entertainment which require sound studies. He said that regarding the subject restaurant, the concern would be that the sound from the juke boxes would not extend beyond the exterior walls of the restaurant, and that the doors would be required to be kept closed. Commissioner Di Sano commented that it would appear that the restaurant management is considering a 24 hour operation for financial reasons; however, he stated that no other restaurant on East Coast Highway is open 24 hours. Commissioner Di Sano further commented that a compromise is needed, and that the residents are disturbed by the trash and delivery trucks prior to 7:00 a.m. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1942 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the aforementioned modified Finding No. 7 and Condition No. 7, and that Condition No. 12 be amended to state "that the restaurant facility may be open from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The motion would not include requiring the off -site parking agreement because of the explanation presented by Mr. Hewicker from the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Koppelman indicated that the business is adjacent to the residential area; however, there are no other local restaurants in the area that are open 24 hours a day. She stated that the most concerns have not related to Coco's Restaurant but to liquor store customers that have been using the parking lot. She stated that the applicants have the fiscal means to enforce control of the parking lot whereas if another restaurant management operation came in, it may not be to the advantage of the neighborhood. Commissioner Koppelman stated that the residents of Corona del Mar have locally supported the restaurant, and she questioned even if the restaurant is open for 24 hours if there would be a "horde" of customers in the middle of the night. She stated that she does not oppose a 24 -P8- COMMISSIONERS yA o� tin Fp���c^� July 7, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9y MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX hour coffee shop as long as there are controls on it and the parking lot. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. Motion * 1942 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including aforementioned modified Finding No. 7 and Condition No. 7, to add Condition No. 15 which states that "all windows shall be closed at all times. All doors shall be closed at all times except when . entering or leaving the restaurant facility so that sound shall be confined to the restaurant itself. ", and to add Condition No. 16 which states that "the management of Edie's Diner shall control the off -site parking in the parking lot to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Commission." She pointed out the concerns regarding litter and loitering in the off -site parking lot. Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Webb discussed the types of controls to be considered that would restrict the ingress /egress to the off -site parking area. Commissioner Winburn stated that the control of the • parking lot could be detrimental to the neighborhood inasmuch as she had observed a neighbor coming from a residence to the parking lot. Mr. Hewicker commented that the customers from the liquor store may be forced to park on the residential streets if the off -site parking lot is restricted. Commissioner Di Sano stated that the traffic circulation to the controlled parking area could create congestion in the area, and he questioned if it would be to the applicants' advantage economically, to invest in a controlled parking lot so as to maintain a 24 hour restaurant operation. Acting Chairman Pomeroy addressed the circulation problem that is created by a no left turn access from Acacia Avenue to East Coast Highway. He stated that he has a concern that the early morning restaurant traffic would be travelling through the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Debay stated that she would support the original motion. She asked the maker of the motion to amend Condition No. 12 to an opening hour of 6:00 a.m. The maker of the motion supported the amendment to • Condition No. 12. Commissioner Di Sano requested that the foregoing Conditions No. 15 and No. 16 as requested in the 29- COMMISSIONERS \Oja July 7 , 1 988 • �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX substitute motion be amended to the motion. The maker of the motion concurred with the added conditions. Commissioner Merrill suggested ideas that could be implemented to allow the restaurant more control of the off -site parking lot, and he suggested the removal of the telephone booths. Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Webb discussed the use of the alley from Acacia Avenue to Avocado Avenue as an access so that the motorists would not have to travel through the neighborhood in order to find an access to travel west on East Coast Highway. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff regarding a continuation so that the applicants would have an opportunity to come back to the Planning Commission with a revised parking lot layout. Motion & Substitute The maker of the motion, and the maker of the substitute tion motion withdrew their motions, and a motion was made to drawn continue Use Permit No. 1942 (Amended) to the August 4, ion * 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Ayes Absent DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion Items Proposed Amendment Proposed Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Amendment Beach Municipal Code so as to limit the permitted heights of fences, walls, plantings, or buildings to no more than three (3) feet on residential lots adjacent to Set for 8 -4 -88 the corner of any intersecting street right -of -way and Public alley. Hearing Motion * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for a Ayes * * * * * * public hearing at the August 4, 1988, Planning Absent * Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Reouest of Councilman Sansone for the Planning Commission to call un Use Permit No 3058 for review, • UP3058 Said use permit permitted the re- establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages known as "The Place" on property located at 2920 East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. 30- COMMISSIONERS 4 q �•a� July 7, 1988 AG 9N ��i y yk 9?ooy f C o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Winburn and William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, discussed Condition No. 8 regarding the parking plan requirements. Mr. Mike Flamson, owner of The Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he purchased said restaurant one year ago, and that he intends to up- grade the restaurant. Mr. Flamson stated that he has been working with the City Traffic Engineer to finalize the parking plan. Mr. Flamson stated that he has read the letter from Councilman Sansone. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and Mr. Flamson regarding methods that would prohibit the customers from using the back door unless it was for emergency purposes only. Mr. Flamson stated that he had not received a copy of the conditions as approved in Use Permit No. 3058, on February 9, 1984. Mr. Dick Nichols appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that his property is directly adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Nichols stated that The Place has been substantially improved since the Planning Commission had previously considered revocation of the Use Permit. Mr. Nichols pointed out that whenever the residential areas are adjacent to commercial areas, there are problems, and he emphasized that it is very important that the residents and the business owners meet to resolve those problems. Mr. Nichols stated that his request for a five foot alley setback did not occur; therefore, he suggested that no parking should be allowed in the alley inasmuch as the traffic circulation is very difficult in the alley. Mr. Nichols suggested that the Code Enforcement Office continue to work with the owner of The Place to try to resolve the concerns relating to the required conditions. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there has been no action from the City Council regarding the subject item, and that Mr. Sansone should be recognized as a concerned resident of Newport Beach, and that he is not speaking for the City Council. Commissioner Winburn suggested that there should be more *on * enforcement by the City during the next 60 to 90 days. Motion was made to not set this matter for public Ayes * * * * * * hearing at this time and refer the subject item back to Absent -31- COMMISSIONERS July 7, 1988 dG F yDy9i �,9y � wo y ` k CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX staff for enforcement. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the letters from the Code Enforcement Office to the subject owner that addressed some of the issues raised by Mr. Sansone. The foregoing motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. it ,t eT ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business The Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a study session on September 22, 1988, to discuss: Study "dwelling units ", including Granny Units, and Second Session Family Residential Units on R -1 lots; "universal" Agenda parking spaces; and the re- examination of requiring use permits again in conjunction with resubdivisions and tracts for residential condominium development. on * Motion was made and voted on to schedule a study session * * * * * * on September 22, 1988. MOTION CARRIED.. sent * t ADJOURNMENT:10:48 p.m. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -32-