Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2002• It t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Tucker excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to approve the minutes of July 18, 2002 as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker Public Comments: Postna of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, August 2 2002. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes j August 8, 2002 INDEX SUBJECT. General Plan Amendment Initiation No. 2002 -004 (PA2002- Item 1 134) PA2002 -134 129 Agate Avenue A request to initiate a General Plan Amendment, and an amendment to the Local Recommended for Coastal Program to change the land use designation and zoning for 3 separate initiation parcels from Retail & Service Commercial to Two-Family Residential. Ms. Temple noted that this is on initiation of the General Plan Amendment, which will also be considered by the City Council, and is not an approval of the subject amendment. It only authorizes the applicant to submit related applications for processing. The applicant has indicated a desire to construct two, 2-unit condominium projects on the subject property. Condominium development of any kind is prohibited on Balboa Island. The project could be duplexes or single - families but could not be approved as condominium without a change to the code. The applicant has been informed. Following a brief discussion Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has six months to proceed with this amendment if initiated by the City Council. Public comment was opened. Scott Laidlaw, representing the applicant, noted that this process would go forward • for a two parcel, two -unit development or two larger homes. Both of those options make more sense than the current three lot RSC development. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment Initiation No. 2002 -004. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -002, Local Coastal Plan Item 2 Amendment No. 2002 -001, and Code Amendment No. 2002- PA2001 -186 002 (PA2001 -186) 205 Orange Street Request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Retail & Recommended for Commercial to Two - Family Residential, change the Local Coastal Plan designation approval from Retail & Service Commercial to Two - Family Residential, and change the zoning designation within the Newport Shores Specific Plan from Commercial to Residential, in order to replace an existing single - family dwelling with a duplex. z City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Senior. Planner James Campbell noted that this application is to change the General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan and a zone change for land use designation. If adopted, the existing single family home would become a conforming use. The applicant's intent is to redevelop the site and construct a duplex. This is a General Plan amendment and the affect of this will be tracked for the next ten years if adopted in accordance with Council Policy A-1 8. This project would not require a vote pursuant to the Greenlight initiative. The resolution is attached to the report. Following a short discussion, it was determined that the text of the amendment should have been attached as well but had not been prepared. Ms. Temple noted the omission and suggested that the difference would be, the addition of two residential units and a deletion of approximately 1,350 commercial square footage. The text will be attached to the resolution for signature. Public comment was opened. Mark Fairbanks, 205 Orange St., noted that this residence has been in the family since 1953 and that they wish to reconstruct it with a duplex. Public comment was closed. • Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt Resolution No. 1567, recommending that the City Council approve the requested amendments. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker xxx SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2002 -001 (PA2002 -098) 3513 Finley Avenue Request to change the front yard setback of 3513 Finley Avenue facing the Rivo Alto channel established on District Map No. 3 from 40 feet to 20 feet. Associate Planner Todd Weber noted the additional correspondence received after the packet had been sent out had been distributed at this meeting. The correspondence was in supportof the project. Public comment was opened. Ben Anderson, applicant and adjacent owner at 3601 Finley noted: • Beach house is 50+ years old and is termite infested. • Purchased this house and hope to build a larger home. . Worked with the neighbors and staff. • Agrees with the staff report. INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -098 Recommended for approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August S, 2002 INDEX • Public comment was closed. Commissioner Agajanlan asked for a brief presentation. Associate Planner Todd Weber made a slide presentation noting: • Vicinity map. • Views of the site from the northeast /southwest /intersection of Finley and 3641 Street and rear building profiles of adjacent buildings looking due west and east. Commissioner Agajanian asked if this would set precedent in any way for other properties in the area. Referring to the vicinity map, Mr. Weber answered that at 3513 through 3501 Finley Avenue, all have different setbacks from the surrounding properties. The subject property has the front yard setback along the channel of 40 feet and the remainder from 3,501 through 3507 Finley Avenue has a 30 -foot front yard setback. Perhaps the people from 3501 through 3507 Finley Avenue might return and ask for the some 20- foot setback as you typically see on both sides of the Rivo Alto Channel. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt Resolution No. 1568, recommending that the City Council approve the requested amendment. • Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker SUBJECT: Taste of Napa Item 4 611 E. Balboa Blvd. PA2002 -074 • Use Permit No. 2002 -013 (PA2002 -074) Request for Use Permit No. 2002 -013 to establish an Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Continued to August with Type 20 and Type 42 licenses to permit both retail wine sales and limited, 22, 2002 ancillary on -site consumption and wine tasting. The project also includes a request for a waiver of the off street parking requirements. Ms. Temple noted: • Page 8 of the staff report was not distributed and has been provided tonight (she discussed its contents). • The principal basis for a parking waiver is the public parking lots in the area. Associate Planner Todd Weber noted: • Use permit is subject to the City's Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Ordinance. • The applicant originally applied for a restaurant, however, there was no City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Chairperson Kiser, referring to exhibit 3, noted the use of 22 bar stools, two tables and a long wine bar for consumption to support retail sales; this looks like a bar to me. The requested 'bar' hours, was that discussed with the applicant? ItMr. Weber answered that staff's similar concerns were discussed with the applicant INDEX food preparations plans submitted with the application packet. • We had informed the applicant that their application was incomplete and this matter had to be resolved. • The applicant then amended the application with State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) to reflect the two licenses, Type 42 and Type 20. Type 42 license permits the on -site consumption of wine. Type 20 license is retail sales for off -site consumption of wine. • Staff had discussions with the Police Department. • Staff advised the applicant to explain what they intend to do due to the concerns of the nature that the on -site consumption was intended to go beyond limited wine tasting. • We are not talking about one ounce servings, the applicant intends to not have a bar but it is classified by the existing regulations that it acts like a bar or cocktail lounge, which is why they had to get the Type 42 license. • The plans re- circulated to the Police Department reviewed the normal crime statistics and the number of licenses in the area and found there was nothing to preclude the application from proceeding. They have provided some acceptable conditions. (Exhibit 5) • The property had been part of a resubdivision in the past and this is the largest parcel that encompasses three different commercial tenants on the • • ground floor and residential units on the second floor. Slide presentation was made noting the nail salon and cafe with residential units on top; view from public parking lot, and existing alley behind subject property. • The project complies with the General Plan and the provisions of the Central Balboa Specific Plan as a permitted use under the retail and service commercial category. • The proposed hours are 12:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 12:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. • The ABO Ordinance requires certain findings for the Planning Commission to consider: public convenience or necessity, the crime rate, the number of licenses, the number of alcohol - related calls for service and the proximity to residential districts. • The applicant proposes that this is primarily retail sales for off -site consumption of wines with accessory use of wine tasting as limited in the conditions of approval. • The Police Department recommends a limit of a certain percentage of total gross quarterly sales (20%). • Based upon staff's review, this application could be approved. Discussions with the applicant noted the sensitivity to this type of use in that area and their need for 22 bar stools. , Chairperson Kiser, referring to exhibit 3, noted the use of 22 bar stools, two tables and a long wine bar for consumption to support retail sales; this looks like a bar to me. The requested 'bar' hours, was that discussed with the applicant? ItMr. Weber answered that staff's similar concerns were discussed with the applicant INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission - Minutes f August 8, 2002 INDEX and noted in the staff report the area dedicated to the bar and tables as opposed to the entire suite area. No justification was forthcoming from the applicant to staff. Ms. Temple noted that Commissioner Gifford had called earlier expressing an interest in knowing what the applicant's other business looked like physically. (A few photos had been received and were distributed to the Commission for their review.) At Commission inquiry Mr. Weber, referring to City Council Policy K -7, noted that if the crime statistics had been 75% higher than the Citywide average then that would have been a definite recommendation for denial from the Police Department and staff would have supported that. Ms. Temple noted that the only administrative relief from the Police Chief's determination under K -7 Is to the City Council and affirmed this application is before the Planning Commission for approval or denial. Public comment was opened. Andra Sachs, owner of Taste of Napa noted the following: • Owns a Taste of Napa in Sunset Beach. • My shop in Sunset Beach with this concept has been going on for three years. It is located on Coast Highway and is 5,400 square feet with the top floor for catered parties and the bottom story has about 40 seats with dinner • service. • Would like to relocate to Newport Beach. • Main reason for this location was the opening of the theater in the vicinity. • Clientele catered to is between 35 and 60 years old. • The original concept was a cyber cof6 /restaurant /wine tasting and wine store. The wine tasting /wine bar and retail work very well together. She removed the cyber cafe. • My clientele congregate and discuss wines and some may buy a bottle and have everyone taste from that bottle. • I am not after the young people in this new establishment, I am after a crowd that can appreciate fine wine. • The seats are for areas to discuss and taste the wines and allows for a social gathering. • The majority of my wine is for retail sales. I do custom labels for weddings and special occasions. • I own 611, 613 and 615 E. Balboa Blvd. I originally wanted to take 613 and 615 and do french breads /cheeses and appetizers to compliment the wine. However, the tenant who is there now has a lease that expires in 8 months. He will stay there until then and if I want to bring in the restaurant portion later, I can serve food there, as they are right next -door. That was my original idea and is why I had to change the license. In the original plans, there is already an existing caf6 and I was going to move the nail salon to the empty unit and take over those two and connect them. • Because I was having problems with the tenant, I have decided to start If City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 with the retail wine and If things do well and I develop a nice clientele and the business is successful I will probably take over those two units and expand with some type of foods that compliment wines, i.e., chocolate covered strawberries, cheeses, breads. Commissioner McDaniel, referring to exhibit 3 on page 19 stated the layout looks like a bar to me. A discussion ensued on: • Sale of wine accessories. • Shelving placement, • Wine displays and racks. • Wine cabinet has the higher -end wines and is locked. Reach -in wine glass cooler is for the cold wine. • Wines stored at room temperature. • Refrigerated units in back of wine bar will be on wheels. • The square footage of this unit is 877. • The number of bar stools in Sunset Beach. • Percentage of retail /restaurant sales. • Amount of stored inventory compared to the wine bar space. • At Commission inquiry, Ms. Sachs noted she has read the staff report and understands and agrees to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Agajanian asked how essential the bar space was for the operation. I see a bar with some displays. This is such an unusual arrangement. We have a retail operation and I have no problem with the off -site beer and wine. But when we have the on -site, the question becomes, what are we dealing with a bar or is it a retail operation. The floor space looks about half and half. Ms. Sachs answered she considers this as wine - tasting and an environment for talking about the wines. These people are professional; they have a glass or two and leave with a couple of bottles. It is not a noisy operation. If we just did tasting, I could only charge about $2 a taste. If I sell a bottle of wine, I get $25 a glass on good wine. The drinking on site is a revenue stream to me from a business standpoint. Chairperson Kiser noted that there is a real sensitivity to any alcohol beverage outlet particularly in the Balboa Peninsula area. We have to consider these requests quite often and there have been some fairly significant nuisances with some outlets and problems due to the operation. It is not to suggest that would be the case here. Anthony Runkle, spoke in favor of this application noting: • Family patronizes the Sunset Beach store. • It is a safe environment and is a place where he can also cater to his clients. • No loud music. It is nice to sample the wines before purchasing. It 0 People don't usually get drunk on wine but they do with the consumption of INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 INDEX The bar seating is designed for people to sample wines, it is not a bar. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford noted: • Would be happy to see a fine wine retail outlet and wine bar. • I didn't find evidence in the staff report to persuade me that that is what this is. • Storage space seems small for the amount of retail sales that are anticipated. • The bar seating seems excessive. • Retail sales are supposed to be 80%, yet the space devoted to that seems small. • The wine bar is supposed to be no more than 20% for the on -site consumption and it seems to be excessive. • I have major concerns about the parking. • With the amount of seating, it is anticipated that there will be quite a bit of traffic entering and leaving the store. • A lot of accommodation has been made to this site already in terms of parking waivers. • My greatest concern is I don't see adequate conditions to maintain fine wine for sales. • She then asked about the idea of public premises and its relationship to public necessity and convenience and the relationship of the two licenses and how it compares to all the licenses and permitting that have been approved for other wine bars. Ms. Temple answered the term public premise is derived from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control licensing types. A public premise is considered a place that serves alcohol for on -site consumption where that is the principal use and is not in association with the service of food. A restaurant license is defined as a business whose principal purpose is for being an eating and drinking establishment and the alcoholic beverage service is in support or ancillary to that principal business. We have not dealt with the public premise license type very often since the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Ordinance was adopted. The other wine stores that included wine tasting that we have approved, the Overstreets and the new wine store in the ground floor of Atrium Court in Fashion Island, included very small areas that were designed for more traditional wine tasting and so were categorized by ABC as being retail principally and were not required to get the public premise license. They may have had multiple licenses as well. I know the Wine Merchant across the street also serves food, so they may have needed to get a small eating and drinking establishment category as well to their retail licensing. Whether it is beer and wine sales or full service of alcohol sales, the public premise is by definition a business whose principal occupation is selling alcohol beverages and not food. A portion of this business is considered to have a principal purpose of alcohol beverage consumption in the absence of serving food and that Is why It is considered public premise. If they were a true wine tasting, they would get a • 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 license similar to those others that have been approved. However, as the applicant has noted in her testimony, the intent is not to just provide the state limited and price limited tasting, but to allow people to purchase a bottle of wine and to enjoy one or more glasses out of it at the regular retail price. I believe that is what took it out of that classification per ABC purposes. How that relates to public convenience and necessity, if you look at the City's regulation the City draws a distinction between public premise and other eating and drinking establishments when it comes to the Police Department's communication with the ABC regarding the determination of public convenience and necessity. The City specifically notes that if this was an area where the crime statistics were 75% beyond the City average, the Police Chief would have been required to deny the determination of public convenience and necessity. Council Policy K -7 was adopted prior to the ordinance and was not amended after the ordinance. When you read K -7 it looks like it is the Police Chief that makes this determinaflon and is appealable to the City Council, but the ABO Ordinance also has the Planning Commission make a similar determination without the same criteria and guidance. There is a bit of conflict between the two and I have talked to Mrs. Wood and the Police Chief of the need to reconcile the two so that we have a clear set of rules for staff to give advice to applicants on. • Commissioner Gifford clarified that the two licenses do not set up specific square footage; both licenses apply to the entire premises. Under this license, depending on the conditions, the entire premises could be used for on -site consumption except for the fact we do condition it to limit based upon the receipts. Mrs. Wood added that there is not a precise definition of public convenience and necessity; not in City Council K -7, not in the state law, not in the Zoning Code. We have asked the police how they define it and there is no guidance. We tend to look at it case by case and that is why we pay so much attention to the other factors in the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance, crime, concentration, proximity to schools and churches, etc. Ms. Clauson noted that there are cases that discuss it in the context of different types of applications. You could have the concept of public convenience and necessity and different types of licenses and permits that a city might give. There is discretion to find whether it is in the public's convenience or if there is some necessity to give this permit. I have never found any definition. The process that has been set up was for the Police Department or for the City authorized under the Business and Professions Code to make that determination and then give that information to the ABC as to whether they support the issuance of the license or not. We then drafted that policy that gave the Police Chief the ability to make that determination based upon crime statistics, etc. Our ABO Ordinance may have some specific requirements in it. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the overall arrests in the districts are it slightly lower than the citywide average. 46,28% for RD No. 12 as opposed to 48.75% citywide. The enforceability for the maximum 20% of sales for on -site consumption INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . August 8, 2002 INDEX would have to be devised for monitoring the business. We are reliant on the veracity of the information the business owner gives us. Chairperson Kiser noted his concerns of the legal enforceability and the practical enforceability given the proposed use and the tasting and sale of bottles of wine to be consumed and shared by patrons on site, is there any way to show a difference in taxation on a record of sales? How can we differentiate whether they took the bottle of wine and sat in the store and drank it or took it out? Ms. Clauson noted that she does not know what has to be reported to the ABC, so it may be that the information that is reported, we may be able to get copies either from the applicant or the ABC and then make our own determination. I do not know if that is a fact. I don't know it there is a difference in the tax or not. Chairperson Kiser noted that we should have that answer as to whether the ABC has something that we can rely upon; otherwise I just see that condition as being unenforceable. Commissioner Selich stated that this is the kind of use the peninsula needs with all the money the City is spending on public improvements. The idea is to upgrade the area and get more of adult types of businesses there as opposed to the tee shirt shops. From that standpoint, I don't have a problem; I think it is a great use. However, the number of seats does bother me. My understanding is that their • proposal is for beer and wine and that the beer is a minor portion of what their business would be, is that a correct statement? Would we be able to restrict no sale of beer? My concern is not so much as what happens to this operator, but what happens if this business goes out and there is the flexibility to serve beer and wine. Practically, how would we be able to monitor the sales? Ms. Temple answered that the applicant has not indicated beer, but the license type would allow them to add beer to their business. We would want to look further Into the ban on the sale of beer. Continuing, Commissioner Selich noted that if this was restricted to wine only the chances of it going into any kind of bar without coming back to the Planning Commission for further review or approval are pretty remote. That starts to allay some of my fears. I know the concerns with the layout as expressed. I think it is a great concept and if the seating and where the wine is stored, maybe this crude plan could be refined. I have faith in the intent of what the applicant is trying to do, it is not being reflected in the floor plan sufficiently. The number of seats doesn't bother me if it works the way the applicant is telling us. She is in the business of selling cases of wine, not glasses. Commissioner Agajanion noted that this is a great use for the area, however, he has a problem with the floor plan as depicted by the applicant with the number of seats that are proposed and noted: • Some customers will walk in to taste wine and make a decision on whether to purchase, others walk in to purchase and incidentally have some wine, to 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 while still others walk in and taste wine only. With these kinds of activities going on, the space functions as a retail operation, with wine tasting incidental to the retail use. But if the principal of the space is for people coming together, it becomes a social space. And where you combine drinking wine with a social space, to me, that speaks of a bar. If we can cut back on the social area, I am in support of this proposal. Commissioner McDaniel noted that what he sees doesn't make sense at all. It looks like a bar. I am having trouble with wine at room temperature; there seems to be a lot of things that are not well thought out. To give up 5 parking spaces where a lot of people are coming in and sitting as a destination, it doesn't work. I am not In favor of this; I am leaning against it tonight. Chairperson Kiser noted that a lot of the issues relate to the rough floor plan that was sent. I would suggest a continuance of this matter until a better floor plan is prepared showing the seating more like the real intended use. Staff can also investigate whether the alcohol beverage control people do have some way of determining in their reports the beer and wine sales and whether it is being consumed on site or off site; secondly, if we can restrict the sales to just wine. 1 too think this is a great use, but answers to these questions would help. • Andra Sachs noted: • The whole store will be temperature controlled. • The wine rack will hold over 1,000 wines and the cold wine will be In the cooler. • Her husband drew the floor plan rather quickly. • The license comes with beer and wine, however, I am not carrying beer to sell. • The corkage fee that I charge is $5 and this might be a way to monitor the sales. Agreed to a continuance and supplying a more succinct floor plan. Ms. Temple added that the date of the hearing is contingent upon the applicant getting the information to staff. The staff report for the next agenda is prepared next week. I believe staff could do the necessary research in a couple of days. Our next meeting is August 22^d. Chairperson I(iser noted that when we give a use permit like this, the concern is the next operator. When businesses change, sometimes it is difficult to enforce conditions as the use permit runs with the land. Commissioner Gifford stated that if the wine tasting only is the license instead of a public premise, she would be comfortable with the beer and wine and not tracking the sales. It perhaps would be a more efficient way to set aside some of the obstacles that might keep this from being approved. Ms. Gifford asked the applicant if that solution would be acceptable to her. The applicant responded that she felt that she needed a license that accommodated on site consumption, it INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 because the wine sold for on -site consumption was accompanied by a five- dollar corkage fee, which was an additional item of revenue. Discussion followed on the different wine tasting uses within the City. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this to August 22n". Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker Commissioner Gifford asked staff about the comment by the applicant that she has waited six months, was that due in part to the change in the application from a restaurant? Ms. Temple answered yes. There was a lot of discussion as to what the business was and what licenses were required. It did take a while to get an application that made sense. xxr SUBJECT: Candelmo Residence 438 Dahlia Avenue Site Plan Review No. 2002 -002 (PA2002 -103) Establishment of grade pursuant to Section 20.65.030.B.3 for the construction of a new duplex to replace an existing duplex. The existing slope is proposed to be filled creating a flat building pad comparable with the abutting street and alley. Senior Planner James Campbell noted a letter that had been received expressing several concerns, which was received today. He then made a slide presentation noting: • Existing structure on property. Adjoining residences depicting drops in grade, existing patio, retaining walls and property lines. • Area where applicant is requesting to fill the grade and construct home on top of that. • The need for establishment of grade for structure height to be measured. • Views from Dahlia Avenue and Second Avenue. • New retaining walls to be constructed on subject property. • Establishment of grade will have retaining walls creating significant difference in grade between the two, abutting properties. The grade selected is consistent with the street and the alley. • The drainage will have to be studied to address the change of pattern among the three properties so as not to create any additional problems for any of the properties involved. • Slides depicting grades; the size of retaining walls; rear unit of subject property and the slopes of the various properties and alley conditions. 12 INDEX Item 5 PA2002 -103 Approved 0 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 The new structure will be two stories and will be somewhat higher than the existing structure (1 -2 feet). Establishment of grade would allow the new building to be up to eight feet higher in the center of the properly than would be allowed without the approval. In the front of the property, the structure will be slightly higher than what is there now but lower than the house that is behind It to the south. The difference will be the difference In grade between the two properties. Public comment was opened. James Candelmo, 438 and 438 'h Dahlia owner along with his father noted the following: • The ravine between the house on the corner and his property will be filled in. The area below his structure will have a retaining wall but the area past that can be filled in and would probably not be more than three feet high. • The neighbor on the other side will have an eight -foot retaining wall. • This site has a drain with a sump pump that is not efficient. • 1 was told that in 1988, flooding occurred six feet deep. • By bringing the property up to street level, we hope to rectify the problems with the correct drainage. • The retaining wall eight foot section runs about three feet and the rest runs about six to six and a half feet high for the rest of the length. • On top of the retaining wall we will be putting some sort of rod iron fencing to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Selich asked about the sump pump situation. How will this be addressed? Rich Edmonston answered that one of the issues considered is this property raises the drains so that there is a lot less area that drains to the sump pump. The pump may have to be upsized to handle the flows that may have been historically experienced even though it is a smaller drainage area. This is a private responsibility, and this property owner may have to solve these changes. Mr. Candelmo noted that this sump pump is on his property and is as the lowest point of the property, which is about 8 feet below that level of the sidewalk. The vast majority of the neighbor's patio area is about a foot to a foot and a half higher than my property where that drain is. If the sump _pump fails, the water could potentially fill up seven feet and spill over to the street. At Commission inquiry, staff noted: A retaining wall could be built on someone else's property provided that the two property owners agreed. If that agreement could not be met, than it would not meet the condition requiring it. • Any change made on this property that negatively affects an adjoining property, this property owner has to address it. • He may have to retain a sump pump on his property low enough to accept 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 INDEX the drainage from the neighbor to pump it out. • There is a condition requiring a drainage plan that will address both the drainage of the subject lot as well as adjacent properties, and requires remedial drainage facilities to be installed. Alysh Girard, property owner of 440 Dahlia on the corner noted her concerns: • The drainage and flooding, as her property has flooded twice before, • The existing retaining wall on her property being destroyed during the construction, • The intent to build the duplexes in separate stages, how can you re -grade a property and put a retaining wall in stages? • It would be advantageous to us if it could be graded to our property that would eliminate that narrow deep area, as I am very concerned about safety. • We are okay with the height of the retaining walls and have no objections to the structure but drainage is our major concern. Chairperson IQser commented that during the course of construction, provisions would have to be made for the process of the construction so that it would not destroy the wall. If anything would happen to your property they would be responsible, but you would have to pursue that. Don Monteleone, architect for the project noted: • • Proposed first floor elevation will not be any higher in the front on the Dahlia side than the neighbor to the north. • We are not building a structure that is higher than adjoining properties. • We are trying to primarily alleviate the hole and the drainage problems. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted his concern of the sump pump and drainage. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to adopt the attached resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2002-002 with the retaining wall moved as suggested by the applicant and an additional condition that the applicant will have to get approval from the neighboring property owner to the north for the applicant to construct at his cost a retaining wall on the property to the north to retain the fill. Ms. Temple stated that might be the conclusion, but in the event that the existing retaining structure is sufficient or only needs minor modifications I think the purpose is to fill the side yard in whatever fashion makes the most sense for both properties. So if it doesn't necessarily require a full- length retaining wall on the adjoining property, then staff should be able to explore all engineering options to accomplish that filling. Staff knows what the goal of the condition is. Mr. Campbell added that we are basically requiring a retaining wall to be built on the other property. If for any reason they don't come to an agreement, would this 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 have to come back to the Commission for the change? Chairperson Kiser answered yes, as this would solve some of the problem. Looking at condition 13, the applicant will have to solve whatever problem his drainage might create. Following a brief discussion condition 13 was edited - '......enters or crosses any portion of the subject property and shall provide for adequate drainage facilitates for drainage from those properties to be installed by the applicant. The maker of the motion agreed. Public comment was opened. Mr. Candelmo agreed with the changes. He stated that the neighbor to the south, if that area was to flood or there was something to happen, that is a patio area only, no living space is down there. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser then noted the points of the letter submitted by Mr. Dietel and • the relevant discussion. Ms. Clauson noted that the basic law regarding a tree is that if it is overhanging or the roots are sharing a property line or coming over the property line, the property owner can take some measures to cut them back but not anything to destroy the tree. It is up to the applicant to look carefully as to how his project will affect that fichus tree and do what can be done for protecting it. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at the last Council meeting of July 23rd a public hearing and adoption as an urgency ordinance of the Transportation Demand Ordinance that was recommended at the last Planning Commission meeting. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian reported that there was a presentation and several actions took place on the questionnaire that is 15 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 going out to the public; the survey has been expanded to 1000; discussion on selection either a voter registration based sample or all residential sample, it was felt the voter rolls was the best means. The next meeting is August 261". d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Commissioner McDaniel reported that the next meeting is August 151". e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - Mrs. Wood stated that the abatement program will be brought to the City Council on the 131". The program steps down over a course of five years. The first year of the amortization program, the City would pay for design, fabrication of new sign and removal of the old. In the second year we stop paying for design and other step- downs. After the five years and the year 15, the property owner is responsible for all the costs themselves. We intend to go after the signs. Ms. Temple distributed copies of easement map in the lower bay. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 16 INDEX Adjournment • L]