Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/1993•��� ocl °r��°� s.2�,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: r „i.. Q iooa MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * Commissioner DiSano was absent. Absent s s s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney s s s William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary a ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Electic of Motion A motion was made to nominate Harry Merrill for Chairman of officer Ayes * the Planning Commission. Motion was voted on, MOTION Absent CARRIED. sss Motion A motion was made to nominate Norma Glover for Vice Ayes Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion was voted on, Absent * MOTION CARRIED. s s s Motion A motion was made to nominate Anne Gifford for Secretary of Ayes, * * * * the Planning Commission. Motion was voted on, MOTION Absent CARRIED. s s s COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T..1.1 4 t n02 ROLL CALL INDEX Minutes of June 24. 1993 minutes of Commissioner Ridgeway requested that page 9, first paragraph, of 6/24/93 the Planning Commission minutes be corrected to state ....disapproval of the applicant scoffing the Ordinance.. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the corrected June 24, Ayes 1993, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent s Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 2, 1993, in front of City Hall. Modification No. 4065 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit the as -built construction of a deck railing (6 mod 4065 feet 6 inches± in height) adjacent to the intersection of a driveway and the street right -of -way, where the Zoning Code limits such Denied construction to 3 feet in height (measured from the adjacent top of curb height) within 5 feet of the intersection of a street right -of- way and a driveway. LOCATION: Lot 10, Block 532, Corona del Mar, located at 508 Dahlia Avenue, on the southeasterly . side of Dahlia Avenue, between Second -2- COMMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES I„i., R tooa ROLL CALL INDEX Avenue and Third Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: David Rudat and Carol Rudat, Anaheim OWNERS: Same as applicants At the request of Commissioner Edwards, James Hewicker, Planning Director, presented a brief history of the subject application, and Amendment No. 777 that was approved by the City Council on May 24, 1993. The amendment allows a maximum height limit of 5 feet above the natural grade for fencing (the upper 3 feet of which must be at least 40% open) within required front yards in Old Corona del Mar, West Newport, the . Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island. The amendment also requires sight distance triangles at the intersection of street rights - of -way and driveways, where the Zoning Code formerly had no such requirement. The subject application meets the height regulations with respect to the height of the fencing above the deck. The requested modification does not conform to the requirement regarding the corner cutoff at the intersection of the street right -of -way and the driveway. The provision in the Zoning Code requires that a line of sight be provided for automobiles backing out of driveways across sidewalks and into the street. The subject railing is open in nature; however, the fence would appear less open for a motorist leaving the garage because of the angle of sight through the open construction. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that a triangular sight distance is required at the intersection of the driveway and the front property line regardless of the openness of the fence without the approval of a modification. Discussion ensued regarding the adoption of Amendment No. 777 by the City Council, and the policy of the Modifications Committee and . Planning Commission to process similar discretionary permits. -3- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES inly R 199R ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Laycock explained that no construction over 3 feet above top of curb is permitted in the triangle area. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the intent of Amendment No. 777 is to provide sight distance and safety when an automobile backs out of a driveway and crosses a sidewalk to a street; therefore, he suggested that a mirror he posted on the fence to view oncoming pedestrian traffic. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant could maintain the existing design of the fence; however, a corner cutoff would be required at the edge of the driveway and the street right -of -way, and the post would have to be removed at the corner. No construction would be allowed in the triangle area. . The Commission and staff discussed the regulations pertaining to the height of fences and the provisions of Amendment No. 777, safety and sight distance, and triangle areas at intersections. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hewicker explained that a fence could be constructed in the triangular area so long as the fence does not exceed three feet in height above the sidewalk. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill regarding Exhibit 'B ", Findings for Denial, Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant would have to move the railing back so as to conform with the required sight distance triangle. The deck would be allowed inasmuch as it is no more than three feet high from the back of the property line. Chairman Merrill addressed the issue that the deck was constructed prior to submitting the application to the Modification Committee. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dave Rudat, 2801 Old Bridge Road, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rudat stated that the deck . existed prior to the time he purchased the property five years ago. -4- COADMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Jul 8 1993 Y . ROLL CALL INDEX He explained that the old metal railing was replaced with a deck railing that was more aesthetically pleasing and safer, and the deck was not reconstructed. Mr. Rudat circulated photographs of the driveway and sidewalk intersection from a pedestrian's point of view. Mr. Rudat and staff discussed the required distance between slats of all fences that require a railing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Rudat explained that he could see a pedestrian on the sidewalk when he backs out of the driveway if he would consciously be looking for a pedestrian. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker explained that landscaping would not be allowed in the triangular area that exceeds three feet in height above the . sidewalk. Mr. Rudat stated that he would agree to remove the uprights; however, he requested that the corner post be allowed for the purpose of installing plexiglass panels so sight distance would be unobstructed. Discussion ensued regarding the reconstruction of the fence. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer, expressed his concerns with respect to the visibility through plexiglass. He said that when the panels are observed from a 90 degree angle it is transparent; however, if the panels would be looked at from a flatter angle it is less visible to see through as it ages. Another concern would be if the existing potted plants on the deck that are placed approximately 5 feet from the corner would be moved to an area that could encroach into the sight distance triangle area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Rudat replied that when he purchased the property five years ago, that he was not aware that the subject deck and guard rail were constructed on the property without the issuance of a Building . Permit. -5- COMUSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 8 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Rudat 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. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the subject property is unusual in Old Corona del Mar inasmuch as a driveway located on a street is a unique situation, and a modification will not be frequently requested. He stated that it is a difficult decision inasmuch as the Ordinance is for safety considerations, and the Commission is considering denial of an application that could be solved from a safety standpoint but depriving applicants of the proper use of their property. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that if the railing would be . removed in the sight distance area that there would be an adequate area for a patio. The applicant would be deprived of a portion of the patio area; however, the corner of the fence should be removed for the purpose of safety and sight distance. He concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy that it is a unique situation in Old Corona del Mar. Commissioner Edwards expressed his disapproval of the City Council's action to adopt Amendment No. 777 inasmuch as it could create larger liabilities for the City. Motion * Motion was made to deny Modification No. 4065 subject to the findings in Exhibit "13" on the basis that the required sight distance would be maintained. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. Commissioner Gifford supported the motion. She explained that if the previous Ordinance had been maintained, the property owner would have lost considerably more of the deck and in effect, the Ordinance has brought about a compromise inasmuch as only • a small area of the deck has to be removed. -6- 4 •``�y��oV�P �o�'Poygto CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 1111„ u 144q ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes No * ** * * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent * - FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. That the existing construction affects the sight distance of pedestrians at the intersection of the street right -of -way and the on -site driveway. 2. That the establishment or maintenance of the existing construction, would, 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 subject encroachment is not consistent with The legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Use Permit No 3266 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3266A Approved permitted the establishment of a restaurant with indoor and outdoor seating with on -sale beer and wine, on property located in the P -C District. Said approval also waived a portion of the required offstreet parking spaces. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand the indoor dining area by expanding into an adjoining commercial space and a request to waive the additional required offstreet parking in conjunction with the restaurant expansion. LOCATION: A portion of Record of Survey No. 11 -34, located at 251 Shipyard Way, in the southwesterly portion of the Lido Peninsula. ZONE: P -C -7- COPM41SSIONERS 'It X PRIMANN600 qzt- 000-OR410 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES h,lv R 1004 _—j-,_ .. ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Lido Shipyard Sausage Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Curci- Turner Co., Newport Beach Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the outstanding fair share fee in the amount of $1,467.18 bad been paid. James Hewicker, Planning Director, responded to the affirmative. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hewicker explained that the fair share fee that was paid was from the previous expansion and not for the proposed enlargement of the restaurant. If the amended use permit is approved there will be an additional fee that will be computed on the gross square footage. Commissioner Gifford addressed Condition No. 2, Exhibit "A ", stating that the fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits or implementation of the proposed expansion. Chairman Merrill pointed out that the gross square footage does not include the restrooms in this particular case. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Chris Colvin, 3419 Via Lido, architect for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the outstanding conditions have been met and the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". He stated that the applicant has a desire to submit a fee payment plan for the additional fair share fee to the City Council. Mr. Colvin stated Oat the requested additional seating in the dining area would continue to be used for office space; however, the request would give the applicant the option to convert the office space to a dining area in the future. Discussion ensued with respect to the payment of the fair share fee. Mr. Colvin stated that the applicant has agreed to the computation of the fair share fee of $2,946.90; however, the applicant has requested that the fee be paid in three installments. -8- COMMISSIONERS IN t*\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Lilt, R 1001 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Edwards and staff stated that the issuance of the building permit for the expansion of the restaurant would not be authorized until the fair share fee is paid in full. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant is required to obtain City Council . approval if he has a desire to pay the fair share fee in installments. Mr. Sabatino, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission regarding the applicant's request to pay the fair share fee in installments. 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 Use Permit No. 3266 Ayes * * (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". ent * MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not bave any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the proposed facility and the other uses existing on the subject property. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and landscaping will not be detrimental to adjoining properties given the developed characteristics of the existing facility. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3266 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to -9- • l��80NN '1o1�'10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES inly R_ 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 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. CONDMONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That prior to the issuance of building permits or implementation of the proposed expansion, the applicant shall pay the appropriate fair share fee contribution in accordance with Section 15.38 of the Newport Beach . Municipal Code. 3. That prior to the issuance of building permits or implementation of the proposed expansion, the applicant shall submit an as -built parking plan for the on -site parking which shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Any required alteration to the existing parking design shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 4. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 5. That a building permit shall be obtained for the proposed changes to the existing tenant and newly expanded tenant space as required by the Uniform Building Code and the Building Department. -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Jul Y 8 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 7. That all previously applicable conditions of Use Permit No.. 3266, approved May 7, 1987 and Use Permit No. 3266 (Amended), approved November 9, 1988 and July 18, 1991, shall remain in effect. 8. That 41 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the subject restaurant, based on one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area ". The outdoor dining area shall be limited to a maximum "net public area" of 485± square feet and the interior dining area be limited to a maximum "net public area" of 1,151± square feet. 9. That the pedestrian walkway in front of the facility shall be . kept clean and regularly maintained. Said walkway shall be swept, vacuumed, or washed in such a manner that any debris or waste -water does not enter the storm drain system or the Bay. 10. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits for the tenant improvements or implementation of the expansion associated with this approval. 11. That live entertainment or dancing shall not be permitted in conjunction with this restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the . community. -11- 00N0PWt\1%k-\?'X0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Iuly R_ 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 13. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Amendment No. 780 (Public Hearinel Item No.3 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code A780 so as to increase the rear yard setback for required parking spaces (Res 1332 on residential property when a side property line of a residential lot is located across an alley from the subject property. The Approved proposed amendment also includes a request to permit a zero foot rear yard setback adjacent to alleys with widths of 24 feet or more. . INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to deny Amendment No. 780 on the basis that if the Amendment would be approved, that a parking problem would be created, and Commissioner Glover referred to the concerns that the Commission expressed during the June 10, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Gifford supported the motion and she referred to her comments at the June 10, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer, explained that the Public Works Department suggested the Amendment so as to provide a standard aisle width for vehicular access into garage spaces, and the residents would be encouraged to use their garages inasmuch as -12- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH iun'r'�iir 9 Inly R 1991 ROLL CALL INDEX the setback area would enhance the maneuverability of the automobile adjacent to the narrow alleys. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that there have. been conflicts between the Planning Department and the Public Works Department to try to address the issue of lot configurations, i.e. one lot having a side yard on one side of the alley that fronts the rear yard on the other side. The Amendment would place the burden of providing the additional setback on the property that needs the room to maneuver the automobile into the garage. A 9 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the face of the garage in the alley would create a parking space and it is feasible that an automobile would block access to the resident's garage. Mr. Hewicker addressed the issue of the suggested zero foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley that is 24 feet wide or more. Regardless of the width of the alley, 25 feet or wider, the Municipal Code currently requires a 2 foot, 6 inch rear yard setback, or a 27 foot, 6 inch wide maneuvering area into a garage. An automobile can be parked in a garage adjacent to a 24 foot wide alley; therefore, staff has suggested that the 2 foot 6 inch rear yard setback be eliminated on alleys that are 24 feet wide or more. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the Amendment would prohibit individuals from parking on both sides of the alley where the alley is narrow; however, the exception would be if a wall existed on the other side of the alley, and a parking space would be available in the 9 foot rear yard setback area in front of the garage spaces. Commissioner Gifford and Commissioner Glover expressed their concerns that automobiles park anywhere in the alley as long as there is space to drive by the parked automobiles, and that often service vehicles block their garage spaces. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Edmonton replied that the narrowest alleys in the City are 9 feet wide, the widest are 30 feet wide, and the average widths are 14 . or 15 feet. -13- COMMISSIONER$ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r„ lu A 1441 ROLL CALL IlVDEX Commissioner Gifford addressed the property owner constructing • dwelling and facing the situation that there could potentially be • fence along the side property line on the opposite side of a narrow alley. She indicated that the property owner would have a. strong interest in developing the property so automobiles could be maneuvered into garage spaces, and if it would take more than the current required rear yard setback to enhance the maneuverability, then it would appear to be an issue that the property owner could solve on an individual basis. Commissioner Ridgeway supported the motion, and he concurred that property owners should design their garages for maneuverability; however, many property owners want to develop maximum square footage on the ground floor. . Mr. Hewicker stated that in the areas of 24 or 25 foot wide alleys, the property owners often request modifications to build to a zero foot rear yard setback, and the amended Ordinance would allow the property owner that request. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that he would not oppose a zero foot rear yard setback in an alley with a width of 24 feet or more. He stated that he has a concern with the 9 foot rear yard setbacks in the areas where there is a fence across the alley. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Amendment No. 780 with Motion * the exception that the following be deleted from the proposed Ordinance: In addition, required parking spaces on the subject property shall maintain a minimum rear yard setback of 9 feet, when a side property line of a residential lot is located across an alley 15 feet wide or less from the subject property. Commissioner Gifford stated that the substitute motion would address her concerns with respect to the 9 foot rear yard setback. Ayes * * * * Substitute motion was voted on to approve Amendment No. 780 No * (Resolution No. 1332) as amended. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Absent * CARRIED. s -14- . �k�l0� d �\\O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 8 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion Item: Discussio Item General Plan Amendment No. 93 -2 fEl No. 1 Request of the Woloson Company to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the development GPA 93 -2E allocation in Newport Place, Block I, by 1,080 square feet, from wloson 99,538 sq.ft. to 100,618 sq.ft. so as to allow for outdoor dining in Co. association with Pascal's Restaurant. Initiated INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject General Plan Amendment is necessary inasmuch as there is no square footage left in the block to allow expansion. The intent is to process the . General Plan Amendment and the use permit concurrently. Mr. Hewicker explained that square footage cannot be added to an area that the General Plan does not allow. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hewicker explained that the square footages in the General Plan are based on the square footages of the buildings that are constructed and not on occupied areas. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker explained that a Traffic Study will be done in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment, and the cost of the study will be carried by the applicant. Motion Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan Ayes Amendment 93 -2. MOTION CARRIED. Absent x x x -15- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Y-1- 4 1001 ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add' 1 Busines Motion Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Pomeroy Ayes - from the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1993, and Merrill Absent * Commissioner Merrill was excused from the Planning Commission Pomeroy Excused meetings of July 22, 1993, and August 5, 1993. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT. 8:45 p.m. Adjourn x a s ANNE K GIFFORD, SECRETARY . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -16-