Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/1999• Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. • • ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzleyand Hoglund. Commissioner Hoglund arrived at 7:15 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager, Economic Development Robin Clauson- Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger A. Varin - Planning Commission Executive Secretary Marc Myers - Associate Planner Eugenia Garcia- Associate Planner Minutes of July 8. 1999: Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller and voted on, to approve the minutes of July 8, 1999 as written. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: None Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda. The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 2, 1999 Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark Frank, contact person 3007 East Coast Highway (Confinuedfrom April 22nd, May 6th, May 201h, June loth and July 81h) • Modification Permit No. 4879 Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where the Code limits roof signs to the location of a business that is precluded by the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. Chairperson Selich stated that at the last meeting, this item was continued for a vote only because of a potential deadlock on the Commission. Associate Planner Eugenia Garcia stated that the applicant has submitted colored photos that have been distributed. There is an additional alternative being suggested by the applicant located on page 3 which is a combination LetterSign and Logo Sign which may be considered this evening. Public comment was opened. Mark Frank, 701 Lakme Avenue, Wilmington clarified with Commission that the • alternative was a recommendation made by one of the staff members. Originally the sign was proposed to be a 5 x 10 foot torn ticket with channeled letters. However, comments were that it was too big so we reduced it to a 4 x 8 -foot logo with 9 -inch lettering. Public comment was closed Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to authorize the torn ticket, illuminated 4 by 8 -foot sign subject to the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. Commissioner Ashley noted a change to Condition 3 to accommodate the 4 x 8 foot sign that, the torn ticket logo sign is limited to 39 32 square feet. Commissioner Gifford concurred with this change Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: Selich, Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None • INDEX Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 4879 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification Permit No. 4879 Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' use. Retail and office uses with associated signs are a permitted use in this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: • • The subject building has a low roof (approximately 10 -11 feet) and the wall space on the front face of the building is below the eave extensions of the roof, which makes the wall area less effective for business identification purposes. • The parapet band that extends around the perimeter of the building is 32 inches, which limits the size and type of sign to block style letters or a logo sign less than 32 inches in height. This size may limit the visibilityof a sign installed on the parapet. • The parapet band is located partially above the roof and placing a sign on that band would require the approval of a roof sign. • The site has two existing pole and ground signs, which precludes an additional pole sign. • A projecting sign is difficultto achieve due to the low roof eave. 4. That the proposed roof sign will not 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 consistentwith the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The proposed sign is the same area that is permitted by code for wall signs. • The luminescence of the proposed logo sign will meet the • requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Sign Code. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 • The height of the sign parapet is less than structures in this district. Conditions: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The sign luminance shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Section 20.67.025 of the Municipal Code. 3. The torn ticket logo sign is limited to 39 32 -sq. ft 4. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Modification Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Modification Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Modification, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. • 5. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Betiingen 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 neighbor in the vicinityof the applicant. Commissioner Fuller recused himself due to his inability to review the tapes of • the previous meetings. 4 INDEX Item No. 2 Variance No. 1228 Modification Permit No. 4908 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Public commentwas opened. Debra Perlman, Esquire and colleague of Paul Siegelman who was present at the June 24th hearing noted that at the June 24th hearing, the plans were debated at great length with public discussion regarding approval of this proposed project. From the transcripts I read, the Commission indicated that the approval was withheld subject only to a determination of whether the plans conformed to Ms. Temple's recommendations. After the lengthy discussion on this issue, I ask whether tonight that is the sole subject on the agenda or whether there is going to be a re- opening for public comment? My colleague, Paul Siegelman spoke to Ms. Clauson on this matter, and it was indicated that we are probably correct, that this is the only item that remains on the agenda and that the Brown Act does not require any further public comment under the circumstances. Commissioner Gifford clarified that the proposed project was not approved subject to Ms. Temple's approval of the plans. The Commission specifically did not go that way but asked that the plans be brought back to the Planning Commission for the Planning Commission to make a determination. The plans • are to conform to the representations made to the Planning Commission and the accuracyof those representations ore subject to interpretation. Chairperson Selich agreed with Commissioner Gifford's statement noting that this project was not left in the hands of staff but was to come back to the Planning Commission. We are reviewing those plans and people are allowed to testify on those plans. Ms. Clauson stated, for the record, that the characterization of the conversation with Mr. Sieglelman is not accurate. I told him, and we discussed, whether under the Brown Act additional comment was required for any item on the agenda. That was my position and Mr. Siegelman disagreed with me, but I did not agree with him. It has always been my advice to the Planning Commission that even if you have a public hearing and the public hearing is closed, that the Brown Act states that the public has the right to comment on any item on the agenda before a legislative body or the Planning Commission. Chairperson Selich stated that this is the rule that the Planning Commission is governed by. If items are back before the Planning Commission, the public is allowed the right to testimony. Bill Edwards, architect, 2685 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo presented and explained graphics that were distributed to the Commission. These exhibits provide clarification as to the degree of impact of the proposed building profile compared to the existing profile, as well as areas of the existing structure • proposed to be reduced in scale. He noted the area which represents the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 existing parapet and mansard pop -up at the entry skylight, showing reduction and extensions towards the view side. Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification of the exhibit, which depicts the existing facia. She stated that it was her impression that the new height profile would be no higher than the line on the exhibit. Mr. Edwards answered that the drawings have always shown a 2 foot 6 inch high profile at front and back of the height of the majority of the mansard around the perimeter of the building. As there is an existing slope to the flat roof, there is a crown of the pitch which slopes towards the front and the rear at the center of the building that would render the height of the added mansard at 2 feet as there is a 6 inch rise in slope of that facia line. Commissioner Gifford noted that would be 2 feet 6 inches added to the top of the facia line. Mr. Edwards continued to explain the coloring on the exhibits referencing outlines to scale, building references and dimensions, concluding that the trade off between view added and view reduction is in favor of the view added. • CommissionerTucker asked the following: • Is it the mansard that is going up the 2 to 3 feet or is it the roof deck? • Does the roof deck stay the same? • What is the height of the living room roof? • Is that back down to the original height of the roof deck? The trees that are now off the left side of the residence near the new house that is being built, are those trees going to be removed or will they stay? Mr. Edwards answered: • The mansard itself around the perimeter is going up 2 % feet. • The roof deck stays primarily the same. • The roofline over the living room itself will be higher by 2 feet; however, it will not exceed the height of the mansard at the center. • The portion that is closest to the bay, only the center section where the mansard is a foot higher, would the roof deck be slightly elevated. • The applicants propose to keep the trees and trim them as necessary for the new construction. CommissionerGifford asked for a clarificationof terms roof deck, roofline. Mr. Edwards noted that the roofline is the top of the mansard line. The height of the roof deck is not being changed. There are no plans to remove that structure of the deck and so it will remain the same. • Commissioner Tucker asked if there would be a design problem if the mansard INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 on the portion of the house that is closest to the bay were Mr. Edwards answered that when considering the overall view parameters and periphery, the area to be rimmed continuously, would basically be minimal in scale. The mansard itself is basically designed to be continuous and contiguous around the perimeterof the building. That design element is in unison with what is on the front of the house with the mansard profile, with slate and copper. We have rimmed the edges of the deck in similardetail to work together. Commissioner Hoglund arrived at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Edward noted the second colored photographic exhibit. This exhibit was based on the Lax photo that was introduced at a previous meeting and shows the profile of view reduction less than 10 %. The view addition is also shown on the exhibit. Commissioner Gifford asked about the photograph depicting the line of the mansard and the depiction of the second photograph parapet. Mr. Edwards answered that these are two different views taken from two different angles and from two different residence locations. He proceeded to • explain the difference between the higher elevation exhibit and the lower elevation angle. Discussion continued on the explanation of the exhibits and their comparisons. Commissioner Tucker asked the applicant's architect to confirm for the record that the extent to which the proposed structure extends beyond the point of the end of the roof of the existing structure towards the bay is approximately 3 feet %2 inch. On top of that is the eave of the mansard that is 12 inches. The whole thing is just a little over 4 feet further that it sticks out and at that location is approximately2 %2 feet higherthan the existing roof deck. Christi Bettingen, 2215 Pacific Drive noted the following: Pulled back the top and second floor to minimize the impact on the first and second level than initially planned. • Reduced the living area. • The balcony is now conforming on the second level. • Lowering part of what had been view impairment in the past by lowering the mansards is a fair trade off to what we are asking for. • Gone to a great extent to present materials to the neighbors. • According to the Code, a variance is allowed based upon certain findings and I believe we have met these findings as demonstrated. Commissioner Ashley asked, to what extent the re- designed house still exceeds the height limit as it moves down the slope of the lot? n U INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Chairperson Selich distributed another exhibit that shows that the variance being requested is now a total of 24 feet and represents approximately feet less than was originally proposed. Associate Planner Marc Myers stated that the revised plan reflects the new square footage and the new floor area reduced to comply with the 1.5 times the buildable area. The deck extension on the lowest level down the slope is not part of this variance but is indicated as a possible future proposal. Commissioner Gifford asked about the exterior northeast elevations as it appears that the mansard comes down below the roof deck. Mr. Edwards answered that the garage elevation on the right hand side drops a certain extent below the existing facia line. For the short depth on the left - hand side of the foyer, the mansard height is down with a skylight. That particular facia line is proposed to be slightly higher than the existing line, but the goal is to have the primary part of the new mansard line around the perimeter the same elevation as the existing facia. The total height of the mansard over the foyer is 3 feet. The mansard height is lower over the garage but the height of the mansard is slightly (10 inches) taller than 3 feet. The height • from grade to top of the mansard over the garage is 12 feet. Commissioner Gifford asked if they could lower the height to 12 feet on the foyer side to which she was answered yes. Commissioner Hoglund asked how the chimneys would impact the profiles shown on the exhibits. Mr. Edwards answered that it would be in a very minor way. There is an architectural detail that will be placed on top of the existing chimney stacks. The existing chimney stacks are camouflaged and are not seen on the exhibits. Commissioner Gifford stated that the height of the new mansard as viewed from the Vaughn's residence, is higherthan the existing chimney. Mr. Edwards answered that the existing chimney is roughly two feet higher than the existing top of roof. With a 2 foot 6 inch mansard, it needs to go a minimum of 12 inches above top of mansard plus a minor amount of detail. Susan Baker Vaughn 2200 Pacific Drive passed out statements regarding this variance. Additionally, she distributed a set of her pictures. She thanked the Commission for their time on this matter and the members who came to her house to look from their vantage point as well as her neighbors. Referencing her packet, she noted the neighbors who asked that the height variance be dropped in regards to blocking views. In all fairness, since we are talking about • a tremendous loss to the neighbors who will lose their view and possibly their INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 values of their homes, should be given the right to see the actual height that this building is going to end up. We request that story poles be erected where we can see what will happen. There is quite a bit of money involved in the resale of homes that have been listed with, as partial view homes on the water. Mr. Jerry Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive stated that there is a problem with the exhibits and photos. Not everyone understands them. He asked that the story poles be erected. He offered to pay for part of the bill to have them erected. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich stated that because of the controversy over the depiction of the photographs, he and Commissioner Tucker went out to each of the four residences that had come to the Commission to make their complaints known, the Vaughns', Laxs', Pechuls' and the house being constructed next door. He noted the following: • View impacts - had no problem without story poles, from the information provided envisioning where the roofline is going to be. • Actually visiting the properties and seeing the views is much more accurate than any of the photographs. • • In terms of view impacts on each of the properties - from the Pechuls' residence, envisioning the outline of the roof, they do not suffer any overall view impairment. They lost some view in certain areas and gained view in other areas. • In terms of Laxs' residence on the first deck, because of the removal of the cupola structure and the parapet, they actually had an improved view. From the other deck levels, it is more of a push. • In terms of Vaugns' residence, there were some minor encroachments into their viewing areas, but with the removal of the cupola and parapet wall it is not nearly the push from the Pechuls'residence. • In terms of the Fluter /Collins residence, standing on the decks the pine trees are existing and already block the views. The extensions of the home come out to the edge of the pine trees, so they have no additional view impairment. The house has a southern exposure and the light and air will not be blocked by the mass of the structure any more than the pine trees already do. • In terms of the homes across the street, the applicant has the right to construct a garage structure that would have an equal ridge or higher ridge line than the spec home across the street which would have a much greater impact on the view. What the applicants are proposing has a lesser impact than what they have a right to do under the existing zoning. • People have the right to plant trees or shrubbery, as there is no restriction. They could be fast growing trees down the slope that could possibly impair the views. 0 To the degree that the proposed project is under the maximum height limit, the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 people across the street seem to think they have a right to that view, their view over that property is being borrowed. That view is not owned by the property owners across the street. Commissioner Tucker concurred with the comments made by Chairperson Selich. He added that these properties do have spectacular views and the amount of view blockage in his opinion, is going to be very minor. I know the neighbors are concerned about what the impact is really going to be. It is a question of materiality to support their position and I just don't see the materiality. Commissioner Hoglund stated that the Planning Commission has listened to the arguments from all sides on this issue. As you know, at the last couple of meetings, I had voiced concerns over granting the Bettingens this variance. did so primarily because of the perceived impacts to the homes on the right and left side of the Bettingens. The neighbors across the street, I believe would actually benefit from this proposed variance versus what the Bettingens otherwise have rights to do. If the Bettingens wanted to, they could build higher in front of their property while conforming to the City's height limits. Instead, they are asking to have a lower front than they would otherwise be entitled to but to be able to exceed the height limits to the rear of the property as it cascades down a steep slope. It is this aspect of the variance that bothers me. I do not like the idea of exacerbating an already non - conforming condition, yet, I too spent time this week touring the Bettingen home as well as the adjoining properties. Although the drawings provided us previously indicate substantial massing at the rear of the property that on paper seem to impact negatively the adjoining properties, a visual inspection of actual site conditions demonstrate that the effect is really not as bad as I thought it would be. The adjoining homes peripheral view corridors would really not be impacted to any significant degree. This is because the distinct site layout and floor plans of each of these new homes coupled with the impact of the Bettingens' pine trees (proposed to preserve) already have on these peripheral view corridors. Therefore, to me it means, do we allow a property owner through the remodeling process to exceed height limits on a home that is built on a steep slope when it has some marginal negative massing impact on its side neighbors, but in the process preserves view corridors for neighbors across the street and gives all neighbors the benefit of an updated home including new outside building materials and architectural treatments. It is a tough call, but in this case because the negative impacts to the side neighbors are so marginal I am willing to support this variance application. I think the neighbors on Pacific Drive will be pleasantly surprised when the Bettingens construction is over and maybe then some healing in this neighborhood can begin. Commissioner Gifford stated she too visited the various sites. We as a Commission are not charged with protecting private views. But, at the same • time we are charged with making the findings that are necessary to support a 10 IMD�i • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 variance. It has always seemed to me that in looking at someone who is requesting a variance, if we grant that variance, is it benefiting everyone? When I visited the properties, I wanted to be sure that I understood when I looked at them, I felt I interpreted them differently from the information I received at the last meeting. It is my impression, that with the lowering of the front and the kind of profile we are talking about, everyone is better off than if the frontwere to go as high as it could. I think there is an opportunity to reduce a portion of the front slightly, and if we could recoup that 10 inches on the side over the foyer it would be nice to do for the neighbors then I would support this variance. Commissioner Ashley stated that he shares the previous comments. Referencing the exhibits he noted that the Bettingens have the right to build the house higher in the front than what they propose. Concluding, he stated he is in support of the variance as it will provide for a better house for the entire neighborhood and will have less view impact than otherwise entitled. Chairperson Selich commented on changing the roof profiles either on the front or the back, because of the angle viewed over the house, changing that would not have any material impact on anyone's view. It would take some of the architectural interest out of the structure. It should be left the way it is as it is . lower than the parapet that is there now. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve the variance with the plans submitted with the findings and conditions as contained in Exhibit A with the additional condition contained in the staff report of July 8th. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Recused: Fuller, Kranzley EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Variance No. 1228 Variance No. 1228 Findings: The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single - family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Fomily Residential designation. • 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 categorically exempt from the requirements of the Environmental Quality Act under Class (Existing Facilities). 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. 4. The following exceptional or special circumstances apply to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generallyto properties in the some District: The topography of the lot inhibits the property owner from designing a dwelling comparable to other homes in the area due to the fact that the property slopes in two directions, southwesterly away from Pacific Drive, and northerly downward across the property. The lot is constrained by the steep slope of the bluff thereby restricting the siting options for the residential structure. • 5. The approval of a Variance to exceed the height limit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicantforthe following reasons: • Construction within the height limit will require demolition of the existing structure and redevelopmentof anew residence. Construction of a new residence would require extensive excavation of the slope in order to provide a building pad area with a building envelope within the height limit and the R -1 District Regulations. The proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of height requirements could result in a dwelling that is substantially smaller than otherwise permitted by the Zoning Code. 6. The approval of this variance to exceed the height limit does not constitute special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity for the following reasons: The dwelling is approximately 13 feet in height as viewed from the street side of the property and is in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 The proposed addition is a continuation of the existing roof and is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood. The granting of the variance will allow an addition to a single family residence, which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted height limit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood because: The applicant has designed an addition to the existing dwelling that is distributed over three floors and designed with minimal impact in order to preserve public views from Pacific Drive, and views from adjacent homes. • The site development has included an increased setback and open or clear glass deck rails on the rear of the lot in order to increase the view corridoracross the subject site from peripheral views of the adjacent neighbors. • Use of the property as a single family dwelling is consistent with the existing development in the neighborhood. • The additional height on this lot will not change the aesthetics of the neighborhood since the proposed addition is a continuation of an existing roofline, is on the bluff side of the property, and not visible from Pacific Drive. • The existing building is lower than other existing buildings on the bluff side of Pacific Drive and the remodel is designed to minimize the extent to which the addition will exceed the height limit. The proposed addition is located behind the existing structure as a continuation of the existing single story roof line along the front of the property which will not increase the visual vertical scale, bulk and height of the building as viewed from Pacific Drive. 8. The granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the . maximum allowable floor area limit will be detrimental to the health, 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 INDEX safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood because: • The additional square footage is not justified since there are no unusual circumstances which prevent the applicant from constructing a home utilizing the full potential of allowable square footage and comparable to other homes in the neighborhood on similar sized lots in the neighborhood. • The applicant is able to construct an addition to the existing home without demolishing the existing structure and without extensive excavation to comply with the square footage requirements and that is in the same proportion to the lot size as others in the R -1 District. • The granting of the variance will allow an addition to a single family residence, of a size that is not in scale with the lot size. • The additional square footage on this lot will change the aesthetics of the neighborhood since other home sizes bear a similar relation to lot sizes, which the proposed addition would exceed. The approval of Modification Permit No. 4908 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 further, the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The bay window encroachment is minor in nature. • The bay window encroachment is located at the upper or third floor of the building because the grade of the lot is a steep slope. • The bay window is located on the entry level of the structure (as viewed from Pacific Drive), and if the lot were otherwise flat, the location of the bay window would be considered as the first floor and consequently permitted. • & Clearance in the side yard around the window is not an issue 14 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 since the grade of the lot slopes. The bay window complies with all other regulations of the Zoning Code. Conditions: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, roof plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The gross floor area of the existing residence and garage including the new additions shall not exceed the area equal to 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. 3. The height of the remodeled building including the addition shall not exceed the heights established in the approved set of plans. 4. One independentlyaccessible garage parking space shall be provided on -site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve • the residential unit at all times. 5. The rail on the new decks in the rear shall be constructed with glass, wrought iron, or other similar material that will provide a rail that is clear or at least 5070 open. 6. A barrier or railing shall be constructed at the top of any retaining walls higher than thirty (30) inches. 7. The third floor bay window shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code with the exception of the location of the window. 8. The roof eaves of the structure shall be limited to a 1 foot maximum projection with the exception of the rear elevation, where the middle 11 feet of the upper floor of the building shall be permitted a roof eave projection of I foot 6 inches maximum from the exterior wall line of the structure. Standard Requirements The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specificallywaived or modified by the condition of approval. • 1. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Department. 2. Public improvements may be required of the developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 3. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 4. A standard agreement and accompanying surety shall be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a grading or building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 6. The overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the • nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 7. A drainage study shall be prepared for the on -site drainage by the applicant and approved by the Building Department showing how the on -site drainage is to be handled. 8. This Variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. •sr SUBJECT Jiffy Lube of Newport Beach (Arthur Bahor, Architect) 1520 West Coast Highway Continued from July Bth meeting • 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. • Associate Planner Marc Myers added that the applicant has provided staff with 16 INDEX Item No. 3 Use Permit No. 3647 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 material and color boards with samples of the exterior finishes of the proposed building. The staff consulted with the City's design consultant for recommendations, who determined that the proposed materials including the exterior marble and bronze glass were acceptable. The proposed concrete roof tile, exterior building stucco color and the aluminum mullion color of the exteriordoors and windows should be more in the line of earth tones in order to tie the entire building together. The design consultant's recommendations are provided on the backside of the materials board for the Commission's review. Commissioner Fuller asked the following: • The Taco Bell easement to the east is planned on being used. Is it legally Staff answered: Ms. Clauson answered she has read the easement which allows reciprocal use of that driveway as long as that easement is in existence. The Commission may want to add a condition that the easement may not be terminated or revoked, or, if it is, they have to come back to the Planning Commission for further approvals. It is a recorded easement. • Mr. Myers answered that in this case, the ground sign is a monument sign. • Traffic Engineer, Rich Edmonston stated that the end stall on the Taco Bell property if a vehicle were parked there, would encroach into the full width of the aisle that would serve the Jiffy Lube property. Our observations have been that the Taco Bell lot is seldom full and that being the farthest spot from the building, is the least likely spot to be used. • Mr. Myers answered that the original Taco Bell Use Permit granted a waiver of parking spaces in order for that approval to be obtained. In order to omit or reduce the number of parking spaces on site, they would need to amend the existing Use Permit. • Mr. Edmonston answered that the driveway will remain two -way to serve both the Taco Bell and Jiffy Lube. • Mr. Myers stated that the Site Plan lists the internal driveway as 10 feet, • however, the Traffic Engineer has recommended that it be widened to 12 17 INDEX consistentso that this can be approved? • Is aground sign a monument sign? • If easterly access to subject property were limited to one direction would one of the parking spaces have to be deleted from the Taco Bell property? • Can we request that Taco Bell give up a parking space? • Within this easement, is two - directional traffic permitted? • What is the width of the internal driveway, the one to the rear. This use being proposed, does it conform to the zoning and the General • • Plan? How many cars can be serviced in the tandem bays at one time? • The 12 -foot CalTrans easement, is that the some shown on the plans? • Mezzanine is to be used forwhat? Staff answered: Ms. Clauson answered she has read the easement which allows reciprocal use of that driveway as long as that easement is in existence. The Commission may want to add a condition that the easement may not be terminated or revoked, or, if it is, they have to come back to the Planning Commission for further approvals. It is a recorded easement. • Mr. Myers answered that in this case, the ground sign is a monument sign. • Traffic Engineer, Rich Edmonston stated that the end stall on the Taco Bell property if a vehicle were parked there, would encroach into the full width of the aisle that would serve the Jiffy Lube property. Our observations have been that the Taco Bell lot is seldom full and that being the farthest spot from the building, is the least likely spot to be used. • Mr. Myers answered that the original Taco Bell Use Permit granted a waiver of parking spaces in order for that approval to be obtained. In order to omit or reduce the number of parking spaces on site, they would need to amend the existing Use Permit. • Mr. Edmonston answered that the driveway will remain two -way to serve both the Taco Bell and Jiffy Lube. • Mr. Myers stated that the Site Plan lists the internal driveway as 10 feet, • however, the Traffic Engineer has recommended that it be widened to 12 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 feet. Mr. Edmonston added that this would be if the easterly drivewaywere made an entrance only. You could make the driveway into the Jiffy Lube one way, but the customers that were not driving through the building, would have to go around the back. If that became a mandatory part of the circulation, then it should be widened from 10 to 12. If the joint driveway access off the Taco Bell site remains two -way, then the 10 feet is adequate, as employeeswill only typically use it. • Mr. Myers answered that the site zoning is Retail Service Commercial and the proposed use is allowed in this area. • Mr. Myers answered that the extended service bays were to create the ability to service more than one vehicle at once, should the need arise. In addition it would be to accommodate oversize vehicles such as recreational vehicles or limousines. • Mr. Edmonston answered that what is shown on the site plan is the existing curb line, the right of way and protection of that 12 -foot easement, should the City decide to widen Coast Highway. • Mr. Myers answered that the mezzanine is a second floor office space in the front portion of the building and is to be used for bookkeeping purposes. Continuing, he noted that as a member of the Mariner's Mile Business and Citizens group which concluded as of April 1997 the land use regulations in the study area are generally appropriate, including height and density provisions. While the Committee finds that existing land uses are for the most part appropriate, certain recent improvements and certain existing uses may not maximize the potential of the area. Of greater concern are the aesthetics of the area... the goal is to provide a frameworkthat will guide private sector new development in creating a distinctive "sense of place" and image for all of Mariners' Mile. The whole area was studied. In these recommendations, we suggested that this framework should be adopted at the policy level as a resolution, rather than as an ordinance. Was this ever done? As for as uses and those types of things, this consultant does not recommend? He then proceeded to read additional goals /recommendationsfor entire study area. Mrs. Wood answered no, that has not been completed. We have retained a team of consultants to prepare the design framework and we have a draft, but it is not been taken forward to the City Council for approval. In the interim, any projects for Mariners' Mile, we are having that design consultant team provide design assistanceto the applicant and to the City to help bring continuity in the area. That has resulted in the recommended colors, materials and landscaping presented on this project. The consultant team does not recommend the uses for the area. The only formal form of implementation of those recommendations was the retention of the design consultant team to do the design framework and provide assistance. At the time this was considered the first step. Staff does pay attention to these recommendations and as we work with potential applicants, we will discourage additional curb cuts, encourage . the combining when working with smaller lots. There has been no formal 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 change in our Commissioner Kranzley clarified with staff that this new plan requires that one space be given up by the Taco Bell. Would that be an additional condition for approval of this use permit? Mr. Edmonston answered that it was not staff's intent that the space be required to be given up. What we acknowledge is that if somebody is parked in that space, they will encroach partly into the access way into the adjacent proposed Jiffy Lube project. Based on our observations of the light usage of the parking in the Taco Bell, and the fact that those who do, park closer to the building and this being the most remote space and will be used so seldom that it would not be a hindrance to the Jiffy Lube project. Commissioner Kranzley asked if this parking space was used, would it be a safe parking space? To which he was answered that the only problem would be that you would have half the drive aisle opened for Jiffy Lube and it would be the half where normally they would come out. It would have to be shared by people coming in and out. Based on the proposed traffic flow for Jiffy Lube, that drivewaywill mainly be for people coming in. • CommissionerAshley said it appears to be a 24 -foot easement on the blue print to allow for the movement of traffic from the Taco Bell into the Jiffy Lube area. It appears that 3 parking spaces will be lost. Mr. Edmonston responded that the 24 feet in terms of how people are likely to drive is needed to extend onto the Taco Bell site, not merely the last stall. The assumed traffic patterns are not problematic. We are not proposing to restrict any parking. The easements granted are not related to parking, only access. We wanted the Commission to understand that this last stall, if used, could impact the actual width of the aisle going in and out o Jiffy Lube. It will function well with two -way traffic. Commissioner Kranzley stated that we are here to make long range plans. It is not clear that there will always be parking spaces available at Taco Bell, or if this is a use other than Taco Bell, all spaces may be used. Ms. Clauson added that in the reciprocal easement: • clearly makes it reciprocal for whatever condition the curb cuts are in for both sides, both ingress and egress • allows two parties to agree to terminate without City involvement • section that protects the Taco Bell to remove any existing curb cuts if it would be detrimental or impact the Taco Bell use permit, but it does not have that same type of requirementfor this use permit • Chairperson Selich noted that this is a risk that the applicant assumes when this 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 use permit is approved. If this reciprocal easement were to be abandoned, they would lose the use permit or have come back to have it modified. Public comment was opened. Arthur Bahar, Architect, 704 Promontory note d prepared with the recommendations of recommendations include: • revised roof tile color • mullion on the windows • landscaping • signage that the materials have been the City consultant. These At Commission inquiry, Mr. Myers referencingthe exhibit noted: • marble will be on the vertical element of the facade of the front and side elevations • flat stucco to be applied to building • stucco color will be oatmeal • mullionswill be taupe to be consistentwith bronze colored glass • concrete roof tile will be a taupe color • Commissioner Ashley asked about the ingress from the Taco Bell. Will it be two - way? Mr. Bahar answered that they have an option. We can have two -way coming from Jiffy Lube. If we do make It two -way, we would extend the back driveway to 12 feet from 10 feet. However, if we make it one -way, we can leave the back driveway at 10 feet and it will be used as an access by Jiffy Lube only as ingress. Commissioner Ashley stated that if we do not have egress from the Jiffy Lube property through the western Taco Bell drive, and egress from the westerly drive of the Jiffy Lube site, wouldn't some conflict develop? Mr. Edmonston answered that is one of the reasons that the Mariners' Mile group was trying to reduce driveways. When this project started, it had two of its own driveways plus the Taco Bell. We worked to get rid of one of them. The driveways are for enough apart that people will figure out and see what is going on. I don't have a particular concern if both driveways are used for two - way. The predominant flow of the traffic to this site is going to be one way and that is as the vehicles are serviced. They will have a primary entrance side where vehicles will pull in from the Taco Bell driveway and circle through the service bay and it will come out on the westerly side to leave the site. Most of the circulation will be one way, the two -way will come from employees who are parked on site and park rather than drive through in the typical service • fashion. 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Christian Fanticola, 45 Auvergne, applicant stated that he had a meeting with members of the staff, City's design consultant and a City Council member. One of the main concerns discussed was the internal access and circulation of which we created the drive aisle to the rear. Ingress and egress through the Taco Bell driveway is important. Through past experience, they have repeat customers and patrons who become familiar with the operation and the entrance will clearly be off the Taco Bell side through that access. The owner of the Taco Bell, Dick Armstrong, has expressed that he would be willing to modify the planter in order to move that parking space that is in question, forward. We have been able to eliminate one curb cut, which is consistent with the goals of the Mariners' Mile group. We have made many changes based on their recommendations. We can provide more landscape along Coast Highway as a result of eliminating the curb cut. In terms of screening of the bays, we reviewed other bays in the area. He then produced a board to demonstrate the site views from the street and indicated that the screening will be adequate. Chairperson Selich asked about the material and color of the door, as well as the signage. • Mr. Fanticola answered that they are glass doors with steel on top and bottom. There is low lighting in the interior of the building. The glass is clear and the steel is silver in color. The proposed monument sign has been worked out with a similar sign as the Sterling BMW sign. This was done at the suggestion of the City's design consultant. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Fanticola stated: • There will be a Mariners' Mile logo on the sign. • The bays accommodate two cars, each of which can be serviced at the same time. • On the lower portion, there are only two employees at any given time. They can handle up to 8 vehicles at once as all they do is remove a drain plug and let the oil drain. • On the upper portion, there is typically one employee per car. Depending on the skills of an employee, he or she can work on two cars. • If would be an unusual situation to have six cars in there at one time. The business estimate is 60 to 70 cars serviced over the entire course per day. • When a customer pulls up, a courtesy technician will take their order for service and then the customerwill be escorted to a waiting room until their order is done. • Grayco Fire Ball pumps are sound proofed to eliminate the sound at the Pump. • There is no roof top equipment. • The retaining wall in the back will be moved back in order to • accommodate access around the back of the site. We have met with a 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 civil engineerwho has assessed the area. • In his experience, arrows are effective for directing traffic, but if the Traffic Engineer determines they wish something else, will work with him on that. The entrance sign will be affixed to the monumentsign if needed. • We are not proposing to restrict left turns. However, I would encourage right turn only. There will be screening along the east bound however, there is an underlying easement along that portion of the property that allows for only shrubs to be planted, and no trees are allowed. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich stated that a conditional use permit is not necessarily something that has to be approved. It can be denied if it is detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. We have not denied many use permits in my tenure. In looking at a use, we need to look at the conditions and how the site is designed as well as if the use is appropriate and meets those criteria. In this particular instance, I believe that this is not an appropriate use for this area. The automobile repair facility that is the category this falls under, is only permitted by right in one District in the City • per the Zoning Code and that is the Industrial District. It is only permitted by use permit in one commercial district and that is the RSC District. Special care and consideration must be taken in evaluating the use if it is appropriate or not in the zone as well as whether the Commission would care to condition and which ones to place on that use. In Mariners' Mile, there are no stand -alone automobile repair facilities. I don't think it is appropriate to have an auto repair facility in this area. There are other RSC zoned properties in the City where it would be appropriate. It does not provide any benefit to the surrounding properties; it is injurious to the office building to the west. It would probably inhibit the quality of what we get on that particular piece of property if and when it ever gets recycled or remodeled. The location is not proper there for this type of facility. It would be more appropriate by Rocky Point where there is more depth to the property if it could be re- designed and certain conditions could be met. This business has a formula of drive through bays. He then proceeded to discuss two different Jiffy tube sites with comparisons to those sites and what is being proposed tonight. The sites were in Cost Mesa and Irvine. • Costa Mesa: n U o 2 bays accommodating 2 cars 1936 square foot building o 11,500 square feet site a 8 parking spacesrequired /9 provided ❖ 26 feet depth of front landscaping in front of building 40,000 projected average daily traffic ❖ circulation is terrible INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Irvine (in auto mall) a 3 bays 2470 square foot building 18,850 square foot site 7 parking spaces required /15 provided e'• 40 feet depth of front landscaping c 64,000 projected average daily traffic Newport Beach: a 3 bay v 2,432 square foot building 11,641 square foot site 14 parking spaces 12 feet depth of front landscaping 73,000 projected average daily traffic He continued discussing the differences among the three sites concluding that this proposed project is a grossly inferior site plan. It is a pre- conceived design concept with little or no flexibilitythat is being forced on this site. In my opinion, it just doesn't fit. I am opposed to this use on the overall level that it is not • appropriate for the area and the site. On a second level, I compliment the applicantwho has worked hard with the City to try to mitigate the building and the architecture and worked with the consultant, but the end result is that it is too big of a facility on too small a site. We have to look at the impact this project will have on Coast Highway. Commissioner Fuller noted his concerns of the items expressed, however, he has talked to the adjoining property owner who stated that this would not be beneficial to a project he may be proposing. However, to deny this, I am struggling with that. It does conform to the zoning in the General Plan. This is not within a specific plan area. If this is so unpopular and undesirable, where is the opposition this evening? I haven't heard anybody speak against it, whether it be resident other than the property owner I called. Some of the projects approved that are in there, to me don't fit. Namely the Car Spa, the Auto Bistro which I voted against and the Auto Sport (a retail project approved last year). I think this proposed project would be a benefit for those of us who live east of the bridge. The landscape requirement of 20 to 40 feet is not feasible in these small lots. I would ask the applicant if he has ever considered a two -bay operation. Commissioner Tucker stated that this is not the greatest use, but there is a whole group of uses there that are not great. Where do you draw the line, absent specific Council direction? It is difficult to compare to Irvine, where the Irvine Company has taken years to plan everything. Granted, if the Irvine Company had planned this portion of our town, I am sure it would look a lot different than • it does today, but they didn't. As for as traffic is concerned, I can't conceive of 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 a use going in there that would have less of a traffic impact. It is not a high intensity type use. I agreed with the Chairman at the last meeting to eliminate the driveway, and the applicant has done that. Some additional things can be done on the architecture and design so that it doesn't really look like a Jiffy Lube anymore than it possibly has to. I will suggest some additional design conditions and ask the applicant for his input. Commissioner Ashley stated that the applicant believes he will be servicing between 60 and 70 cars per day between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. That is a period of thirteen hours and it would not suggest that there would be a lot of traffic moving in and out of this site. I agree that 12 feet of landscaping is about all you can expect on Mariners' Mile. I am concerned about the circulation. The applicant is using part of Coast Highway as part of his circulation system. The use is appropriate for that particular location. Another use could come in that could propose more traffic. He then proceeded to ask if this was approved, would the Planning Commission commit to having to approve Taco Bell reducing the allotted parking on their site. Mrs. Wood reiterated that the parking space does not need to be eliminated from Taco Bell per Mr. Edmonston. It is his assessment that the circulation on the • two sites would still work adequately. Commissioner Fuller stated that he understood that the planter was going to be moved in order to preserve that space. Mr. Edmonston agreeing with the statement added that it appears from the plan that there is some room to move forward, it would then be much closer to the full 24 feet. Mrs. Wood stated that this could not be a condition of approval on this project. This applicant can not force another business and property owner to do something on their property. Ms. Clauson stated that the space does not have to be eliminated, it can be improved by moving it forward. By approving this, we are not requiring them to eliminate that Taco Bell site. We are not forcing the Planning Commission to eliminate that parking space. Mr. Edmonston noted that perhaps a condition could be added that the applicant would work with the Taco Bell people to adjust the parking space in question. Commissioner Ashley stated his support of this application only if the Planning Commission attaches a condition where there will be ingress from the Taco Bell drive into the Jiffy Lube property exclusively and no egress from the some • entryway out through the Taco Bell drive. This would provide for a one way 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 circulation site that would permit cars to come in the Taco Bell drive, move about the northerly portion of the property as needed, and exit on the westerly drive of the Jiffy Lube. Commissioner Gifford asked if that was the only alternative Commissioner Ashley would consider? An alternative condition could be that the permit was granted provided that they either did that or they procured the consent of Taco Bell to move the parking space. Commissioner Ashley answered no; he was really concerned with the circulation with egress and ingress on Coast Highway. Chairperson Selich noted that the Planning Commission should not exacerbate the problems on Mariners' Mile whether the appropriateness of the use or the level of design standards. Commissioner Gifford agreed that the Planning Commission should not perpetuate something that is going in the wrong direction, but that presumes that something could come along that would be better. We have had plans where we have encouraged marine uses: we have had committeeswith plans, • etc. What is happening is clearly generated by the public. In terms of using Coast Highway as part of the circulation, you don't have the advantage of a corner as somewhere else. Practically speaking, you can turn left to get in, but certainly not to come out. Our choice is do we want to let existing businesses that are not thriving or the facility that is decaying and an eyesores to continue to stay there hoping that something better will come along. I am in favor of approving this application. • Commissioner Tucker commented that the circulation is not perfect, there is no question about it. The applicant did have its own separate drive on the east side that would have resolved all of the circulation issues. However, the Planning Commission suggested to eliminate a driveway and that the applicant look at utilizing the Taco Bell easement, which he has done. As between an additional driveway on Coast Highway and using the Taco Bell easement, the easement is the lesser of two evils. Even though it's not perfect, it's better than going back to the first choice presented. Commissioner Kranzley concurred with the comments of the Chairman. He added that two rapid turnover uses next to each other are dangerous at that location on Coast Highway. This is not the right use in this area. He stated his opposition to this application. Commissioner Hoglund stated his agreement with Commissioner Gifford's remarks. He stated his support of a one way entrance at Taco Bell and signage prohibiting left turns at the westerly exit. He expressed his support. 25 R104:11 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Public comment was re- opened. Chairman Selich asked the applicant if they would consider going from three bays to two bays? Christian Fanticola answered that he had investigated doing a two bay facility but based on his experience having that third bay will make this site work much better. To eliminate a boy would be on operational error for this project. I do believe the driveway from Taco Bell can be made entrance only and the driveway onto Coast Highway can be made exit only. This is the flow of the function of this business. I believe that the access agreement had provided for ingress and egress and that is why it was stipulated on the site plan. CommissionerTucker asked: • About the landscaped areas, if a 2 -foot high berm could be located in the 10 -foot area frontage. Mr. Fanticola answered yes. • Materials to be planted on top of the berm are to have an immediate screening effect. The goal is to have that landscaping be 4, 5. 6 feet on top of that 2 -foot berm. Mr. Fanticola answered that he could put a hedge there. The fan palms are used for continuity along Coast Highway • along that area. The Myopia Ladum species of shrub was considered to be adequate screening shrub and is planned for the northeast portion of the lot in the rear. • On the west side of the property there is a 10 -foot landscaped area as well perhaps do the same thing? Mr. Fanticaola answered that there is a King palm on site that was cited as one of the three significant King palms in Mariners' Mile. We are going to plant shrubs below it. Mrs. Wood added that the consultant has made recommendations for the Mexican Fan palm and a hedge of Ligustrm that is the hedge and type of palm that has been recommended for a number of projects along Mariners' Mile. It is our attempt to keep a continuous theme of landscaping. The landscape plan shows the same Ligustrm and Fan Palm treatment everywhere along the Coast Highway frontage, and I believe that staff has written that into the Findings and Conditions. That would be Condition No. 22. Commissioner Gifford noted the Ligustrm is the Texas privet and is not fast growing. It is dense when it gets going and if that is what the design consultant is recommending for a uniform look, suggested maybe it could be a larger size. Commissioner Tucker asked if that could be placed along the eastern perimeter instead of the Ropheolepislndica? Mrs. Wood stated that could be done. The proposal to change from the Ligustrm to the Rapheolepis is to provide some variety on site. The Rapheolepis • does provide some blossoms for a different look and grows quite high. 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Further Commission inquiry: Use of smooth stucco instead of a Taco Bell stucco? Mr. Fanticola answered, yes. Move the monument sign to southeast comer of property rather than in the middle of the landscaping. Mr. Fanticola agreed. If the westerly driveway is egress only, is it possible to put in a screen wall with smooth stucco. Mr. Fanticola answered that could be something that could be worked in the plan. Chairman Selich asked for clarification of the location of this screen wall. CommissionerTucker clarified it would be on the west side of the building where there is a landscaping planter. It would be attached to the building, something around that area that is perpendicular and sticks out the side of the building 6 to 8 feet to further screen the bays. Discussion followed on the possibility of narrowing and curving of exit driveways to force right hand egress. • Mr. Edmonston pointed out that there are parking spaces that use that aisle way. They need all 24 feet. Associate Planner Marc Myers noted that the revised drawings take into consideration, some of the recommendations that were made including: • Eliminating a curb cut • Moving landscaping from eastern property line to along the Coast Highway frontage. • Enlarging the front porch of the proposed building to provide a larger outdoorarea. • Rear access drive behind the building. • Developing a sign that is consistent with the goals of the Mariners' Mile group and in compliance with what is permitted. This could be a ground sign if possible. Chairperson Selich stated that, as it appears to be the consensus of the Commission to have the one -way into the site, narrow the distance between the noses of the two landscape areas. The glass should be bronze to match the front and the steel treatment be taupe color on the frames of the doors to match the mullions on the building. Rather than leave the approval of the monument signs to the Planning Director, this should come back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Tucker agreed on the signs. Anytime a special action is required • by the Planning Commission we should be able to address this issue. 27 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley for approval of Use Permit No. 3647 with the attached findings and conditions in Exhibit A with the added changes: • Finding No. 3, bullet 4 - add via one way circulation on site. • Finding No. 3, bullet 7 - add, ....along with proposed landscaping • Condition No. 9 the hours of operation to 8:00 p.m. daily Add condition that the reciprocal driveway and access easement with the neighboring property owner (Taco Bell) shall be executed and delivered to the City. (He was told that it already is part of this record and it has been recorded). • Add condition regarding the consultant's recommendations about materials and colors be part of this application. • Add condition regarding the current parking space on the Taco Bell site shall be adjusted so that no obstruction occurs. (Determined to be unnecessary) Ms. Clauson noted that if the driveway is narrowed to one way, the issue of the parking space is moot. At Commission inquiry, the applicant stated that he has the agreement from • Taco Bell to move that space in three feet and is agreeable to having that condition on the agreement. Commissioner Hoglund pointed out that the Planning Commission wants the bays to be screened to the maximum extent possible. We are supportive of your use, but we don't want it to look like a garage. We want to minimize people's impression of seeing garages on Coast Highway. To the extent that landscapingwill help do that, we want you to. Staff read back the following amended /additional conditions Amended: • Condition No. 1 - the new longer one elaborating landscape requirements will be number 22. • Condition 9 - shall be amended to read 8:00 p.m. daily Add: • Condition 19 The overnight storage or parking of vehicles at any location on -site, including inside the building, shall be prohibited. • Condition 20 The proposed building, including the materials and colors comprising the exterior walls, facade, and roof treatment, shall be consistent with the site plan and those materials and colors presented to and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 22, 1999. The stucco shall be smooth texture and the garage doors are to be the same color and materials as the windows and mullions on the front of the building (taupe). . Condition 21 The business shall be limited to a total of two wall mounted 28 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 signs, located on the east and west elevations. Additionally, one ground sign shall be permitted, and shall be a monument sign of possible. The final design, size, and location of the wall signs and the ground sign shall be subjectto the approval of the Planning Commission • Condition 22, A landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be submitted to the Building Department in conjunction with plans for construction of the project and shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. Landscaping shall be provided in a combination of trees, low shrubs and ground cover consistent with the approved landscape plan and acceptable to the Planning Department, Public Works Department and General Services Department. The eastern property line of the parking lot shall be appropriately landscaped with Rapheolepis Indica bushes and either Eucalyptus lehmannii or Ficus m. nitida trees to obscure the direct view of the service bays. Four, 24 -inch box trees spaced approximately 8 feet on center and the hedge with 15 gallon sized at 36 inched on center shall be provided in the landscape island along the eastern property line adjacent to the new parking area. The 10 -foot landscape area along the Coast Highway frontage shall include a berm 2 feet high, with a Ligustrum hedge planted on it. Size of the plant material is to be determined by staff. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits • the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm installation of the landscaping specified by this condition of approval. The approved landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and shall be permanently maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. • Condition 23. The driveway from the access easement property to the east of the project site shall be limited to entry only. The landscaped islands shall be extended to restrict access accordingly with the goal of providing maximum of screening of the service bays from Coast Highway. The final plan to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Edmonston noted that what is there now, is the existing retaining wall. The planter provides a front overhang for the space. There may not be a lot of room to move that forward. Chairperson Selich asked the applicant if he was willing to move the Taco Bell retaining wall forward? Mr. Fanticola asked if it would be acceptable to move the finger of the planter towards Coast Highway to narrow the driveway to mitigate the problem of the parking space? Mr. Ira Handleman, consultant with Jiffy Lube stated that it was his impression that by going with Commissioner Ashley's suggestion to making it one way that would resolve the problem as well because they can narrow the driveway. The • issue of moving the planter is not an issue as it is going to be resolved by the 29 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 one -way condition. Chairperson Selich stated he was correct. Commissioner Kranzley stated his support for a right turn only out of the site. For public safety we ought to discourage people from turning left onto Coast Highway. Commissioner Tucker stated that the right turn only would result in traffic going down to intersections that we know are failing to turn around. I would not support making this a requirement. The applicant indicated that he would be agreeable to put up a sign indicating right turn only. Chairperson Selich agreed with CommissionerTucker A straw vote to include a right turn only sign posted on site: Hoglund - aye Kranzley- aye . Gifford -aye Selich - no Ashley- no Tucker - no Fuller - aye Add Condition 24 The applicant shall install signs at the westerly driveway to indicate, "right turn only." Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Gifford,, and Hoglund Noes: Selich and Kranzley Absent: None Abstain: None Chairperson Selich thanked the applicant recognizing their cooperation and graciousness working with the City to help make this a good project. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3647 Use Permit No. 3647 Findings: . 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for 30 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 'Retail and Service Commercial' uses and an automobile service facility use is considered a permitted use within this designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3647 to permit the establishment of a automobile oil, filter and lubrication facility 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 the Municipal Code for the following reasons: • The use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since automobile service facilities are typically allowed in commercial districts. • Conditions have been added to address potential problems • associated with parking, and noise. • The number of spaces provided on site can accommodate the parking demand for the facility. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the automobile maintenance facility, via one way circulation on site. • The proposed use is a use that serves the residents in the area. • The nearby residential uses will not be adversely affected since conditions have been added to address potential problems associated with the proposed use, and the hours of operation have been limited. • The orientation of the building with the service bays turned away from residences and the direct view of West Coast Highway along with proposed landscaping protects against impacts on residential neighbors and minimizes impacts from the public right -of -way. • Additional landscaping has been provided on -site to enhance the aesthetics of the project and minimize the impacts of the service bays. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. • The site design eliminates a curb cut along West Coast Highway • Landscaping is provided consistent with the Mariner's Mile 31 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 screen views of the service bays from Coast Highway The building is designed with a limited mass to the front fagade, and with colors and materials that reflect the quality of development the City seeks for Mariner's Mile The Internal drive aisle will facilitate internal circulation from one side of the building to the other without having to drive through the building or out onto West Coast Highway Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan, landscape plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The requirement of sixteen (16) parking spaces shall be waived and a minimum of fourteen (14) parking spaces shall be provided on -site. 3. Vehicle services shall be completed entirely within the approved building structure. No vehicle service or repair shall take place in any parking space or drive aisle. 4. The outdoor storage or display of materials, equipment or any other auto related parts or merchandise shall not be permitted on site. S. No inoperative vehicles shall be permitted to be parked on site outside the building including in marked spaces. 6. Parking and advertising of vehicles for sale or lease is not permitted. 7. Provisions shall be made for the storage and collection of used oil and lubricants pending recycling. 8. All employees shall park on -site. 9. The hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 a.m. and 7:80 8.00 p.m. daily. 10. The entire site including the exteriorof the building including, the parking areas, and sidewalk shall be maintained free of litter and debris and kept in a clean and orderly manner at all times. 11. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed 32 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 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 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. 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 confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 12. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 13. The drainage from the site shall be collected on -site so that it does not track out onto the public right of way or drain into the bay. 14. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use • of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 15. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of nearby properties and public streets within view of the equipment, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 16. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be fully screened from view from West Coast Highway and the surrounding properties (including from above). All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or a container otherwise screened from view of adjoining properties and streets except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 17. The approval is only for the establishment of a quick lube type service facility specializing in automobile fluid changes and lubrication only. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a automobile service station, gasoline station, or a vehicle equipment repair use as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning • Commission. 33 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 18. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or leasing company. 19. The overnight storage or parking of vehicles at any location on -site, including inside the building, shall be prohibited. 20. The proposed building, including the materials and colors as recommended by the City's design consultant, comprising the exterior walls, fagade, and roof treatment shall be consistent with the site plan and those materials and colors presented to and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 22, 1999. The stucco shall be smooth textured and the garage doors are to be the some color and materials as the windows and mullions on the front of the building. 21. The business shall be limited to a total of two wall mounted signs, located on the east and west elevations. Additionally, one ground sign shall be permitted and shall be a monument sign ff possible. The final • design, size, and location of the wall signs and the ground sign shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 22. A landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be submitted to the Building Department in conjunction with plans for construction of the project and shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. Landscaping shall be provided in a combination of trees, low shrubs and ground cover consistent with the approved landscape plan and acceptable to the Planning Department, Public Works Department and General Services Department. Additionally, the eastern property line of the parking lot shall be appropriately landscaped with Rapheolepis Indica bushes and either Eucalyptus lehmannit or Ficus m. niffdo trees to obscure the direct view of the service bays. Four, 24 -inch box trees spaced approximately8 feet on center and the hedge with 15 gallon sized at 36 inched on center shall be provided in the landscape island along the eastern property line adjacentto the new parking area. The 10 -foot landscape area along the Coast Highway frontage shall include a berm 2 feet high, with a Ligushum hedge planted on it. Size of the plant material is to be determined by staff. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm installation of the landscaping specified by this condition of approval. The approved landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and shall be permanently maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. • .....shall include the Ugustrum hedge on the bay frontage to be of a 34 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 size approved by staff. Shall also include a 2 -foot berm with hedge to be installed in the 10 feet landscaped areas. 23. The driveway from the access easement property to the east of the project site shall be limited to entry only. The landscaped islands shall be extended to restrict access accordingly with the goal of providing maximum screening of the service bays from Coast Highway. The final plan to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 24. The applicant shall install sings at the westerly driveway to indicate, "right turn only ". Standard Requirements The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. • 3. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 4. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 5. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. Intersections of West Coast Highway and the private drive shall be designed to provide sight distance in accordance with Standard 110 - L. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 8. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 9. The operator of the vehicle maintenance facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Upon evidence 0 that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards 35 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 established by Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant use and to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance. The sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 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 • 10. 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. 11. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. The existing unused drive approaches shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk as needed along the West Coast Highway frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. SUBJECT: Froncoli Gourmet Emporio 1133 Newport Center Drive • Use Permit No. 3659 Request to permit the expansion of privilege of alcohol sales from a Type 41 liquor license (beer and wine only) to a Type 47 liquor license (full bar - on -sale general for bona fide public eating place) pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code. The alcoholic beverage outlet is in conjunction with an 36 INDEX Item No. 4 UP 3659 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 existing restaurant on a property located in the Fashion Island Planned Community District. Since the Fashion Island Planned Community permits restaurants without a use permit, the request is specifically for alcoholic beverage service only. Commissioner Fuller clarified with staff that the existing bar area would not be expanded. Public comment was opened. Kay Shrimpton, 212 Genoa, representing the applicant stated that they have read, understand and agree to the findings and conditions of this application. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley for approval of Use Permit No. 3659 with the findings and conditions in Exhibit A. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: None • Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3659 Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' use. Alcoholic beverage service is incidental to a restaurant use which is a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class (Existing Facilities). 3. Approval of Use Permit No. 3659 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: • 37 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 • A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made based on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in a restaurant setting. • The establishment will provide regular food service from the full menu at all times the facility is open; and the limited hours of operation should minimize the potential number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control problems in the area. • The proposal will add a new liquor license to an over - concentrated area. However, the alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of the facility as a restaurant. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages. • The restaurant use with alcoholic beverage service is a permitted use in the Fashion Island Planned Community. • Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. • 2. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 3. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and.correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. 4. The hours of operation shall be limited between 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily. 5. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 6. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 38 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 All owners, 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 requirementsof this section 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 the certificate of occupancy. 8. 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. Standard Requirements 1. Dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. 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. 3. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. s.. SUBJECT: Referral of the Twin Palms Restaurant 630 Newport Center Drive Determine that review of the Twin Palms Restaurant Use Permit is needed, and refer to a hearing officer. Mrs. Wood clarified that the Planning Commission is not holding the hearing on the compliance with the Use Permit this evening, just determining whether there is enough reason to send it to a hearing officer. Ms. Clauson stated that the provisions of the Municipal Code allow the Planning . Commission or the Planning Director to designate the hearing officer. The 39 INDEX Item No. 5 Twin Palms Restaurant Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 suggestion is to have the Planning Director appoint the hearing officer. Our preference would be someone who is well- versed in land use law. The hearing officer would take evidence, listen to all the arguments, and make findings and recommendations for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would then receive those findings and recommendations as well as a full administrative transcript for review. The Planning Commission would then make a final decision on the recommendations. The decision of the hearing officer comes before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Wood added that another reason to use a hearing officer in this case, is that the live entertainment permit, staff believes also should be reviewed. That permit is issued by the City Manager and if the two were combined with one hearing officerthat would be more efficient. Ms. Clauson added that they are proposing to have the hearing officerfold into the live entertainment permit issues as well as the use permit issues and an administration citation hearing as well. Commissioner Gifford clarified that there are no particular standards or hurdles that the Planning Commission has to meet to either follow or not follow the • recommendations of the hearing officer. There are no constraints on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fuller pointed out that in the discussion, staff notes 120 disturbance calls to the Police Department since 1995. The complaint log has 725 complaints by the occupants of the hotel, were they noise related? Mrs. Wood confirmed that the 120 disturbance calls were to the Police Department and the 725 number what was the hotel received from their guests, not in every case were the Police called. The standard of noise is regulated by the Noise Ordinance. Condition 20 in the use permit was written with flexibility that if the Noise Ordinance was to supersede than that was to govern. John Antoni, attorney representing Twin Palms, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 18 Floor, Los Angeles noted the following: Litigation- 1995 to 1996 there was litigation between the Four Seasons Hotel and Twin Palms which culminated in a dismissal without prejudice by the Four Seasons Hotel. • Permissible noise level - agreement met with City Manager. • Client has spent approximately$200,000 in defense costs in defending that litigation. Another $200,000 has been spent in complying with the requirements of this use permit. • The log referenced in the staff report precedes the date the live •entertainment permitwas issued. 40 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 • Identification of complaints should start at the least from the middle of June, as that is when the level of noise and the level of compliance by Twin Palms would be placed at issue by these permits. • No other complaints made by any other party concerning the noise level at Twin Palms. • Issues raised by Four Seasons should have been addressed in the litigation. • Clients are now re- litigating the same issue that was dismissed 2 % years ago. • The report by City indicates we are in compliance. If the noise levels are further reduced, we can not operate the business. • Why does the financial burden have to rest with my client? • We don't see the need for the appointment of a hearing officer at this point unless there is some verification of these complaints. There are no complaints from 1999. Commissioner Fuller asked if the Twin Palms have ever considered a roof instead of a tent top? Mr. Antoni noted that the selling point of the restaurant was the tent top. They do not want a roof. • Commissioner Kranzley stated that he is confused over the Wieland report contained in the staff report. He listened to the tape of the meeting that this use permit was heard. It is clear that the Planning Commission was looking for the residential noise standards to be applied to this use. What I don't understand is how can it be said marginally in compliance yet, from 10:00 p.m. on the maximum decibel level at the hotel is 50 -dB (A). I am seeing levels of 59 dB(A), 60 dB(A), and 53 dB(A), that is not in complioncewith what we voted for in 1995. Mrs. Wood noted that the condition in 1995 did say that the levels set forth would be superseded by the Noise Ordinance. We have Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code. One of the things we frequently forget, it is not an instantaneous exceedence of the noise level that constitutes a violation, but exceeding the noise standard for any 15 minute period. That is where Wieland concludes it is marginal. Commissioner Kranzley noted another point brought up at the meeting was that we still have condition 21 which is that, "....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:' We have 120 documented complaints and 700 undocumented that are at least detrimental to the peace of the community. It was very clear that the Commission was concerned about the noise and at the public hearing, the applicant basicallysaid, "this is not going to • be an issue, in any event" He also stated that it would not be a problem. Well, 41 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 visa f officer. no I support 0 Mrs. Wood noted from Chapter 10.28, which deals with loud and unreasonable noise. It says it is unlawful to cause noise that would cause discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person or normal sensitivity residing in the area. I believe that the hotel guests are considered residents of the area. Commissioner Fuller asked about the proposed tower at the Four Seasons that was approved by Council. It has not been built, do we think this is a reason, or do we have any idea? Chairperson Selich mused that perhaps it was due to the financing being harder to get in the hotel market. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to approve appointing a hearing officer to review the Twin Palms Restaurant Use Permit. Ayes, Noes, • Absent. Abstain. ADDITIOI Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund None None None IAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Mrs. Wood reported that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was approved on the second reading. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Project status reports - none. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Fuller asked about the markings on Coast Highway and Dover to which Mr. Edmonston answered that they are CalTrans markings. He will talk to CalTrans as his office has had other expressed concerns about these markings being confusing. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Chairperson Selich asked for a discussion on the next agenda to require story poles to be erected on proposed variances with criteria for consistency. 42 INDEX Additional Business 40 E City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes. July 22, 1999 f.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Gifford and Ashley asked to be excused from the meeting of August 5th. ADJOURNMENT: 10:55 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 43 INDEX Adjournment