Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund. Commissioner Gifford was excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager, Economic Development Patricia L. Temple- Planning Director Robin Clauson - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger A. Varin - Planning Commission Executive Secretary Marc Myers - Associate Planner ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Commissioner Selich was nominated and accepted the position of Chairman. CommissionerAshley was nominated and accepted the position of Vice Chairman. Commissioner Fuller was nominated and accepted the position of Secretary. Minutes of June 24,1999: Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley, and voted on, to approve the minutes of June 24, 1999 as amended. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: Fuller Public Comments `► Postina of the Agenda The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 2, 1999 0 Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 INDEX 0 Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark Frank, contact person) Item No. 1 3007 East Coast Highway Modification Permit No. (Continued from April 22nd, May 6' ^, May 20th and 4879 June 10th) • Modification Permit No. 4879 Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where Continued to the Code limits roof signs to the location of a business that is precluded by the 07/22/1999 effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on July 22nd, because the full Commission was not present. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to continue this item. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None ••• SUBJECT: Bettingen Residence (Bill Edwards, Architect) 2215 Pacific Drive (Continued from May 6, and May 20, 1999) • Variance No. 1228 • Modification No. 4908 Request to approve a variance to permit alterations and additions to an existing non - conforming single family dwelling (due to height and parking) that will exceed the height limit in the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone by approximately 18 feet and exceed the maximum allowable floor area limit on property located in the R -1 District. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a second floor bay window to encroach into the required side yard setback area and the roof eaves to encroach within 1 foot of the side property lines. Commissioner Kranzley recused himself due to campaign contributions made by a neighborin the vicinityof the applicant. Commissioner Fuller recused himself due to his inability to review the tapes of the last meeting. Commissioner Hoglund referencing the new design with the reduced square footage, asked what amount does the proposed structure exceed the height limits, and, how much the structure in the present condition currently exceeds the height limit. Item No. 2 Variance No. 1228 Modification Permit No. 4908 0 2 i 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Associate Planner Myers answered that based on the plans it appears that the building is in excess by approximatelyeleven feet over the height limit. Commissioner Tucker noted that a letter received from a Susan Vaughn that had a date on the front page of April 1, 1999 with the subsequent pages dated as June 27th, 1999. There seemed to be some confusion as to the action taken by the Commission at the last meeting of June 24th. There was no action at the last meeting, the item was continued. There was a motion that was put on the floor, but it was withdrawn. The Planning Commission made no decisions on this item other than to continue it. Chairperson Selich added that this item was continued to get a set of revised plans for review and evaluation. He noted that the testimony given in this matter should be directed towards the revised plans that have been submitted. Public comment was opened. Bill Edwards, Architect 36895 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo spoke representing the applicants. He noted the following: • The client is not represented by counsel. • Asked, that if the comments extend to other than relative to the revised drawings, for a continuance of this item. • Able to answer questions regarding the height profile and allowable FAR. • Distributed color keyed renderings that highlight the existing and proposed building mass. Chairperson Selich asked for and received clarification of the drawings by Mr. Edwards noting that the beige represents the existing building and the blue represents the extension of the existing building (roof and deck areas). Chairperson Selich stated that if the applicant wishes a continuance of this matter after public testimony is heard, then the applicant or their representative needs to ask for one. John Morgan, 18682 Beachmont Avenue, Santa Ana spoke as the original architect of the easterly property next door and for that property owner. He related that at the time the preliminary research and the design work for this proposed project was started next door, he had talked to the Planning staff. It was his understanding that a project such as this would not get this far. He expressed his concern of the height. Talking from 8 years experience having worked on many custom homes in Newport Beach, he stated that the house is pre - existing, non - conforming with regards to the height. However, he was able to design the house to the east stepping down the hill respecting the views, light and ventilation of all concerned. Referencing a small sketch, he noted that the lot sloping down would not impede the additional footage being added to the proposed project., It is quite feasible and cost effective to build at 3 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 a lower level on their site for the additional footage desired, than to build multiple levels which would require expensive structural steel framing, caissons and all kinds of expensive things. And, of course, they will exceed the height limit. I was able to do it next door and there is plenty of room for them to do it down the lot, I don't understand why they can't. We met with the client once before and were really clear we could not support this design which has been changed slightly by pulling the deck back a few more feet, eliminating the roof over the upper floor deck which is a start. However, they were not interested in listening to our concerns and they continued to build an extremely large deck structure and added livable footage. I don't believe the Planning Commission has been made aware that there is a buildable area down on the lot that they could very easily add one to two levels to get the increased living area and would increase the value of the home. We hope that if the height variance is granted, that it would apply only to the livable area and that any deck areas that exceed the height limit relative to the top of guard rail heights which is normally24 feet would be eliminated entirely. Douglas Lax of 2224 Pacific stated that he has not had a chance to look at the revised plans so he can not say if they significantly differ from the previous ones. Given the nature of this proceeding, he expressed his concern about the review of this variance. The variance is confusing. Presenting the original photograph that was the basis of his exhibit presented at the last meeting, he noted the existing roof peeking out behind the existing Fluter structure to the east. There is no reason for the Planning Commission to approve this variance Without acknowledging the concerns of the citizens who have a tremendous investment on this street that includes the views. The Planning Commission should at least insist that the applicant construct story poles so that there will be no more confusion and everyone will be able to see exactly what will happen. This is a confusing and complicated issue and should not be taken lightly. Jerry Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive stated that he has reviewed the revised plans. He asked that the applicants erect story poles, as the revised plans were very confusing to him. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Hoglund noting his sensitivity to living on slope property stated that he is troubled by the notion that the Planning Commission seems to want to go ahead and approve something that would exacerbate an already non- conforming condition. The height limits are there, I am not so concerned about the front height limit, I am more concerned about the rear heights with respect to the adjoining neighbors on the sides. That is the issue that confronts my neighborhood and it confronts this neighborhood too. Height limits being exceeded at the rear of the structure, as the property slopes down will impact the side views from adjoining neighbors. It is not proper to allow the applicant to exacerbate a non- conforming condition. I am sympathetic to the fact that 4 INDEX • 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 they live on a slope and want to remodel their property, but they're not the first ones who have to confront this issue. Commissioner Ashley, looking at the exterior elevations as shown on the revised colored plans, noted that it coincides on the easterly side exactly with the applicant's plan for extending the deck and not necessarily differs from this elevation. It appears to be extending out to be equal to the property on the east. Commissioner Hoglund stated that the house that is there on the revised proposed plans might not always be there. Someone ten years from now may wish to come in and remodel this house, and they are going to have to live by the same rules that we are asking the applicants to live by. It troubles me that we are proposing to make an exception here. It doesn't seem to be any reasonable rationale for granting the exception except that they happen to want to remodel their home and get the extra square footage. That is great, but it doesn't have to be done in the place they are proposing to do it. Chairperson Selich noted that since he has been on the Commission, six or seven variances like this with the issue of the oblique views have been reviewed. The Commission has in the past evaluated each situation on the total circumstances and has approved these variances going down the hill, where they do in fact have some impact on these oblique views. The Planning Commission looked at all of the facts and existing circumstances and tried to come up with the best judgment. On this particular property, whether the applicant remodels the house as proposed, or they build a brand new house within the height limits, there will be significant impairment of views. Whose Views are impaired will be different. If this was a brand new house it would be reviewed differently. However, there are existing structural floor plans and other types of limitations on what can be done in a remodel. It seems to be relatively modest and the additions would not significantly impact the oblique views. This is a reasonable solution to doing a remodel of the existing home. Commissioner Tucker noted the statutory language that the Planning Commission is bound by that says; "..The granting of such Variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case ... be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood'. Obviously that oblique angle has some impact, and the question is when do you step over the line? What is confusing to me is that I don't know what the impact will be on the house to the east. If a house were built that completely complied with the height limit, it would step down the some hill side by side with probably ten feet between the buildings. I am not sure if this design being proposed would have any less or greater impact if the house were built strictly in accordance with the code to step down the hill. I don't have enough information to tell whether it would have any impact. The angle from up above would have an impact out into the bay view, but 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 it is material or not, is a toss up. Commissioner Hoglund disagreed with some of the comments made about new construction having no greater impact than what we are seeing before us. New construction would follow roughly the 24 foot average height dotted line on the revised drawing which would seem to me to have less impact than the proposal that is in front of us. If the majority of the Commission feels that this doesn't have much of an impact, perhaps they would be willing to, as some members of the public have come before us recommend, ask the Bettingens to erect story poles and clarify some of the confusion that seems to be out there. Public comment was re- opened to allow the applicant's representative to respond to the Commission's comments. Bill Edwards stated that in order to provide the additional information that Commissioners Tucker and Hoglund request to show impact to adjacent residences, etc. with respect to the count of the Commission, asked that this item be continued. We do have some information available in lieu of pole profiles. We have done this with actual photographic and computer constructed information but are not prepared this evening. Chairperson Selich asked if July 22nd would be acceptable to the applicant. Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Edwards if his client had any objection to erecting story poles so that the neighbors would be able to see what the height would be. Mr. Edwards stated that past attempts in setting appointments were declined. The graphics that have been prepared explain the story accuratelyfrom across the street. He added that he could provide adjacent site plan, level by level, view angle studies. These would show basically level by level at least the particular home to the east that was mentioned, exactly what the peripheral view is, and also to depict what the profile would look like if it was expanded all the way down the hill. Commissioner Ashley confirmed that from these graphics it would tell the people on the inland side on Pacific Drive what the intrusion would be, to which Mr. Edwards answered yes. Commissioner Tucker asked if it would be possible for that information to be shared to the people who have expressed concerns. This way, at the next meeting when everyone shows up, we will have one set of facts that everyone agrees to. Mr. Edwards answered that whatever form the Commission suggests, we are INDEX 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 always open and available to meet with the neighbors. Chairperson Selich noted that what has been done in the past is when the story poles are erected, the applicant has gone from different perspectives and taken photographs for documentation. Mr. Edwards answered that the 22nd was acceptable to his client for the continuance of this matter. Ms. Temple stated that there is only one week. Staff would be inclined to give the applicant sufficient time (a four week continuance) to obtain the requested information. Commissioner Ashley stated that when we make it possible for all the people in the audience that have a concern with this particular matter, we would expect that all of you would take advantage of the opportunity to see the graphics in advance of the meeting. We will not have anybody coming to the next hearing saying they just didn't have time, but still going to object. In the past, that kind of testimony has been ruled out. We are giving everybody a chance now to have a review of what is being proposed. You can come back and speak to that review you have made and whether it is acceptable or not acceptable. Chairperson Selich stated that we continue this to July 22nd due to vacation schedules. You need to move really fast, you have one week to get it to staff in order for them to meet their lead times. I would appreciate it if you make every attempt you can to get this information to all the people who have expressed concern on this too. I hold all of those concerned responsible to not come up here and say you have not seen the plans but object to this proposal. Please review the plans and the next time everyone can get up and have the same basis of information. Mr. Edwards stated that if he could have copies of the photographs made by the properly owners across the street. We could use them to construct a profile. The ones we are working on will be ready this weekend. Ms. Temple suggested that any plans or exhibits are given to staff for review as soon as possible. They will be available to members of the public during our business hours as well. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoglund to continue this item to July 22nd. E INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: Fuller, Kranzley •• SUB E Jiffy tube of Newport Beach (Arthur Bahar, Architect) 1520 West Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3647 Request to permit an automobile maintenance facility which specializes in oil and filter changes and chassis lubrication only. The facility has three extended or tandem service bays capable of accommodating up to approximately 6 automobiles at one time and is located in the RSC District. The application also includes a request to waive sixteen of the required parking spaces. The applicant requested to continue this item to July 22nabecause the full Commission was not present. Motion was made by CommissionerFuller to continue this item. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None ••• SUBJECT. Balboa Bay Clubs, International 1221 West Coast Highway • A No. 886 • Use Permit No. 3524 A An amendment to change the development limitations of the existing Planned Community District Regulations to correct an error in the original calculation of the building size associated with the previous approval, as well as to allow an increase in the size of the hotel facility to provide adequate building support areas, athletic facilities, and meeting space. Also included in the Planned Community amendment are provisions to allow the height of the building to be measured from the average grade of the site, and to allow the Planning Commission to approve architectural features, which exceed the basic height limit. Ms. Temple noted the following: • Project was previously considered, reviewed and approved by both the 1i INDEX 0 Item No. 3 Use Permit No. 3647 Item No. 4 Amendment No. 886 UP 3524 A 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Planning Commission and the City Council in the approximate scale and location as depicted in the new plans. • Once the original project was approved, the City and Balboa Bay Club initiated an Option and Lease Agreement for the property that is owned by the City of Newport Beach. • Significant identification as to the type of facility on the property was included as a requirement in the Option and Lease document. • A specific provision for a standard of quality related to other first class hotel operations within the City was mandated as part of the approval. • The action of the City Council on June 24, 1996 relating to the Option and Lease Agreement set a particular time frame for performance that vested the entitlement. • Absent the changes to the project related to the improved design, this project could simply proceed through its design review program to building permits. • The uses as proposed with the exception of the modification to the floor area, the change in the number of hotel rooms and the particulars related to the measurementof the height limit and the architectural features are in essence as originally approved. • The establishment of a datum point for the purposes of measuring height is not a common way to measure height in the City. • Staff is of the opinion that in this particular case, based on the anticipated impact of the original project that the changes were not significant in terms of the potential for view impairment from private residences along Kings Road. • One significant change is one of the architectural features is requested to be significantly higher than the requested height limit of 35 feet above the datum point of 11.5 mean sea level and that is 22 feet higher. It is breaking new ground for this type of feature to be considered in this fashion. It is not considered something that would set a precedent, however, the City should be judicious in electing to approve this. • .Staff wanted to make sure that the Bay Club including its employees would not continue to demand parking on Coast Highway in front of the facility. Most of the employees do park there today. The parking analysis was designed to accommodate not only.the expanded facility but also all employees parking on site. The revised project with the added parking is expected to accomplish this goal. • The use permit does include that all employees be required to park on site which is not currently a requirementof the project. Commissioner Fuller asked if there was any type of parking restriction on Coast Highway if all the parking is going to be on site and, if it was possible to widen Coast Highway; using the twelve foot easement on the north side for the extra lane(s) Ms. Temple answered there is not currently any prohibition, but the City could INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 INDEX consideroptions of metering or additional time limitations. Mr. Edmonston added that he is not aware of any proposals. There is an area that is red near the driveway for sight distance. There is an area that is red down towards the intersection where we have periodically received requests to extend that third lane. Staff has not looked at it as yet. Based on looking at the plans, if parking was restricted on both sides of the highway, we could probably add one lane in one direction or the other, but it would still not be enough to make it six lanes. The General Plan anticipates a 12' widening on the inland side to provide six lanes and parking only on the bayside of Coast Highway. Commissioner Hoglund asked for and received clarification on the height of the cupola. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple explained that the last project was approved in compliance with the height measured from the existing natural grade. Because the request is to use the average datum point, any part of the property that is higher than the datum point would actually have been higher than this particular building is proposed to be. The portion of the elevation that faces towards Coast Highway is actually lower than the prior approval. As viewed from the bay side elevation, it is higher. The previous design was not as refined as the one today, it was just the stated intent of the applicant that they would conform to the 35 -foot height limit. It is not standard to use the datum point as the reference point for the height limit, although the Code allows the Planning Commission to establish this through the Planned Community District Regulations. This is what the applicant is suggesting and analyzed in the staff report. Commissioner Tucker, referring to page 22 in the EIR 152 Expanded Initial Study and Addendum noted that the buildings south of the site are taller than the ones to the north. Ms. Temple clarified that the bayside elevation is the control point for the view for most cases. However, as we compare it to the anticipated actual view impact from the original building massing studies done with the original approval, the new proposed project appears to have lesser impact than originally anticipated with the original project. Commissioner Tucker recommended that in the EIR document that this could be clarified to avoid any confusion. Referencing another point on that same page, he suggested that the language be written clearer on this point. Referencing page 16 in the EIR the paragraph referring to parking code requires 484; the staff report indicates 495. Ms. Temple noted that her staff report was written substantially subsequent to the initial study and the analysis in the staff report was refined to a more 10 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 U surplus. Public commentwas opened. David Wooten, President of International Bay Clubs, parent company of the Balboa Bay Club introduced his colleagues: Beverly Rae, Chairman of the Board of International Bay Clubs and of the Balboa Bay Club. Henry Sheline, Presidentof the Balboa Bay Club Jerry Johnson, Chief Financial Officer Doug Lee and Tom Myers of Lee and Sakahara Architects He noted that the original project chronology: • 1994- approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council • 1995 - approved by the Coastal Commission • 1994 - Option and Lease Agreement with the City was negotiated with the City which provided an extension of the fifty year extension with the existing lease commencing upon the start of the construction of the project. • 1994 - the Option and Lease Agreement approved by the City and then 10 approved by the State Lands Commission • 1997 - presented a conceptual design which was considered and approved by the City of Newport Beach • 1998 - presented design development plan which is before you further refines the design Ruth Reynolds, 1301 Kings Road noted the following concerns: • view impact above the athletic club and tower • possibility of moving the athletic club facility towards Coast Highway • landscaping - palm trees are higher than the building although in the packet it states that no frees will be higherthan 26 feet Public comment was closed. Ms. Temple noted that there is a tower element on the athletic facility that is six feet higher than the roof height of 35 feet. It is located on the comer of the project closest to the highway, it does provide some roof variation, and it does not encroach into the blue water view of the lower bay. Staff does not expect it to have a negative impact in that particular area of the plan. The athletic facility has been re- designed and is somewhat moved back. It is angular to the line of the bay and that particular re- design has opened up some of the view of blue water as may be viewed from homes along Kings Road. In terms of landscaping, referring to the Planned Community text states that trees in view corridors shall be maintained so as not to exceed 26 feet in height. Those are the view corridors in the center of the property and the property from Bay 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Shores to the banqueting facility. In other areas of the property, the trees are limited to the height of the proposed buildings. These limitations are contained within the zoning and are fully enforceable thru Code Enforcement should they not be complied with. Commissioner Hoglund asked about the screened louvers for the mechanical equipmenton top of the roof. How far up are they going to protrude and what will they be made of? Public comment was re- opened. Douglas Lee, 16842 Von Korman Avenue, Irvine stated that the louvers are actually made out of acoustical attenuated metal that will be set down. They Will be under the height limit. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Ashley noting the work done by the Balboa Bay Club and that this is on additional 21,500 square feet which will not create any additional traffic into the club or problem. The overall height of the building at Coast Highway is less than originally proposed. The cupola is an interesting vertical relief of the design. The concerns of the people along Kings Road have been met by staff and are in the report that the Bay Club will have to follow. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Amendment No. 886 and Use Permit No. 3524 Amended with the findings and conditions in Exhibit A as this is a very attractive plan presented and will be a tremendous addition along Coast Highway into Newport Beach. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None INDEX 0 12 0 City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Amendment No. 877 Use Permit No. 3524 (Amended) A. Amendment No. 877: Adopt Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council adoption of Amendment No. 886. B. Use Permit No. 3524 (Amended): Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, designate the site for a mixture of Recreational and Marine Commercial and Multi- family Residential land use. The project as proposed is consistent with that designation since it is a visitor serving land use. 2. An Initial Study has been prepared to document the adequacy of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report to serve as the environmental document for this project. On the basis of that study, it has been determined that all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in that previously certified environmental document, and that it is adequate for the above noted project, and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with said project. 3. Approval of Use Permit No. 3524 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: Access to the site, as modified by conditions of approval, will be adequate for the facility. The parking provided on site will be sufficient for guests and employees. The facility is expected to operate in a manner similar to that which exists, which currently operates with few problems. 4. Approval of architectural features in excess of the height limit is 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 INDEX • appropriate in this case because: • The three tower elements are small in scale as compared to the size of the buildings. • The two roof elements on the main building have a minimal impact to views from Kings Road. • The architectural style of the roof elements is consistent with the overall design of the buildings. • There are no more architectural features than are necessary to achieve the architectural interest desired. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan, landscape plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. All previously approved Conditions of Use Permit No. 3524 shall remain in affect unless otherwise noted below. 3. All mitigation measures adopted with EIR No. 152 shall be complied with. 4. The easterly entrance shall be redesigned to provide for right turns in and out only, in conformance with the EIR. 5. The drive exit radius from the easterly parking lot adjacent to the main entrance guard gate shall be modified to provide a minimum 50 -foot radius unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. 6. A masterplan of water, sewer and storm drain shall be provided to the Public Works Department along with a hydrology and hydraulics study for the site that shows how the on -site drainage is handled. 7. Any Edison transformers required for the project shall be set back from the West Coast Highway entrances in order to provide sight distance in accordance with City Standard No. 110 -L. 8. A public access plan shall be submitted to the City Planning and Public Works Department for review and approval as required by the EIR. 9. A water improvement plan shall be submitted to the Public 14 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 of any grading permits. 10. Parking space and aisle dimensions in the parking lots and parking structure shah be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 11. All monument signs shah conform to the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L. 12. Non - standard pavement in the West Coast Highway right -of- way shall be subject to the approval of CalTrans. 13. Sidewalks located in front of parking stalls shall be a minimum of 7 feet wide if the curb is used as a wheel stop in order to provide a minimum 4 foot width for pedestrian traffic. 14. The valet station for drop -off /pick -up of vehicles shall be shown on the plans. All valet parking areas shall be defined on the plans. 15. All parking directional signage shall be noted on the plans. 16. The main entrance gate shall be modified to provide two lanes in and two lanes out of this access point. A minimum width of 24 feet is required for each direction. 17. The landscaped island in the main entrance shall be shortened to provide access into the underground garage. 18. A truck access plan shall be submitted for approval by the Public Works Department showing how delivery trucks can be accommodated. 19. All employees shall park on -site. 20. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. 21. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, and minimize visibility of light 15 11.f1� 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 sources from any public street or neighboring properties. This shall be achieved by minimizing the number of light sources, and shielding and directing the individual light sources. Additionally, the height of the light poles and fixtures shall be limited to 16 feet maximum. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types, shielding attachments and other pertinent technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made part of the building set of plans for issuance of the final approvals. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to determine substantial conformancewith the intent of this condition of approval, the control of light and glare. Limitations or requirements specified by this condition of approval shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 22. The project operator shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement, particularly as they relate to pool and /or clubhouse activities and restaurant outdoor dining activities or functions. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of rote lr exfed interior exterior Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property:: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property:: N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 23. The applicant shall take steps to assure that noise from deliveries, refuse collection, employees, or cleaning crews do not affect near -by residents. 16 INDEX • P • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July B, 1999 24. Doors and windows of the facility shall remain closed whenever live entertainmentis performed within the restaurantor banquet facilities, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director. 25. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the live entertainment To insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Planning Director. Standard Requirements: The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 2. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 3. Sight distance at all entrances shall conform to the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L for a speed of 50 MPH. 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and The Public Works Department. 5. Arrangements shall 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. 6. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Departmentand the Public Works Department. 8. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 10. All trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be shielded or 0 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 screened from public streets and adjoining properties overlooking the restaurant. H. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 incheswide. 12. The project shall complywith State Disabled Parking requirements. 13. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and final approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 14. Any encroachment of light standards into the parking stalls shall be per City Standard 805 -L. A. & B. 15. The minimum width for the access drives shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 16. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director and the Public Works Department, the applicant shall prepare and submit a landscape and irrigation plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Director. 17. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer to verify completion and installation of the landscaping in accordance with the approved plan. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 21. All managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section 18 INDEX • 0 City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 INDEX a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 consecutive days of the issuance of this use permit. 22. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS- Additional Business a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Ms. Wood reported the City Council actions on the General Plan Amendment initiations; the Local Coastal Program Grant, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the budget, and Planning Commission appointments. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Selich reported the Committee held a review of the automobile dealership sales tax incentive program and that Council approved funding for the airport area planning. C.) Matters which a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Tucker requested that the Commission hold a discussion regarding Variances. The Commission agreed to set this matter on a light agenda and to include Modifications. 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 - Commissioners Hoglund and Ashley asked to be excused from the August 5m meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. s►r ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. Adjournment RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 19