Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/10/1995COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: A.,. .+ in 10" ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy was excused. sss EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Kenneth Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney sss Jay Garcia, Senior Planner Don Webb, Public Works/Utilities Director Ginger Vann, Secretary sss Minutes of July 20.19 95 Motion was made and voted on to approve the July 20, 1995, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. sss Public Comments: None sss Posting of the Agenda: Delino stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 4th, 1995, in front of City Hall. sss COMMISSIONERS a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A..micf 10 1QQ4 ROLL CALL INDEX SUBJECT: Wimer Residence Agenda 221 Via Firenze Item No, Modification No. 4324 (Public Hearing) M. -4324 Review of Modification Committee Action on a request for a 3 feet balcony encroachment scaled back to 2 feet. Approve Delino summarized that this was a rare call up of a Modification Committee action that is chaired by Dana Aslami, Associate Planger. Issues are clearly set forth in the Planning report augmented by graphics posted on the board. The only item in question is the width of the deck which protrudes 2 feet at Modification Committee recommendation versus 3 feet at homeowners request. The 2 feet protrusion would keep the balcony as an architectural feature whereas 3 feet which would permit seating. Public Hearing was opened. Applicant Warren Wimer of 221 Via Firenze stated that 2 foot balcony on the house would be out of proportion Recognizing concerns of Staf, he contented that the end of the balcony would be 10 1/2 feet back from the strada. The houses are 13 1/2 feet back from the edge of an 8 foot wide sidewalk. Precedence concerns are character to improve strada; neighbors are for the improvement; and the architectural committee has reviewed and approved the plans. The extra foot is important to him because of house proportion and the planter does not have to be re-sized. Adams asked if Winer was aware of the Community Association correspondence to the Planning Commission regarding this matter indicating their preference that balcony be no more than 2 1/2 feet. Winer said no and was given a copy of the letter to read. He stated that he would not do anything the Association was not in favor of Adams asked if 2 1/2 foot was acceptable and Wimer replied yes, if the Association so stated. Selich asked for clarification of Association letter. He understood it to say that they are requesting 2 1/2 feet on top of the 6 inches already permitted. Gifford asked for clarification of "2 1/2 foot rule be followed". Mr. Wimer ` -2 COMMISSIONERS 9� L� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anm,ef 10 1 QQS ROLL CALL INDEX said he was not aware of the rule and gave synopsis of information received by him regarding his Association correspondence. Discussion ensued as to the appropriateness of 2 1/2 foot rule and Ridgeway gave over -all view of matter based on his expertise as having asked for a similar modification and knowledge of city study of boardwalk balconies and setbacks. Staff was asked for additional and substantiating information regarding 2 1/2 feet eave overhang requirement and/or fireplace exceptions. David Shockley of 217 Via Firenze, a neighbor spoke in favor of this variance and stated it would be an enhancement to the rear of the property. Hearing was closed. Ridgeway stated that he had walked the area to view the neighborhood for himself. He noted that balconies appeared to be more than 2 feet wide. Commission discussion ensued with Kranzley suggesting to uphold Modification Committee recommendation stating that Lido Island has developed and matured over a long period of time based on stringent setbacks and with few modifications and by giving this homeowner the ability to make an alteration that perhaps other homeowners as recent as six months ago may have resisted pursuing due to the setback and Hiles that have applied for development so long, is unfair. V the Association was here to clarify 2 1/2 foot rule that would help, but in lieu of such clarification Kranzley recommends upholding Modification Committee recommendation. Ridgeway stated that eaves and fireplaces are exceptions to the Code and can hang over 2 1/2 feet without an encroachment and/or modification. He stated that in walking the neighborhood he noted there are eaves and balconies that extend beyond 24 inches. He reiterated the positive aspects and stated he was in support of the 3 foot balcony and Mr. Wimer would deal with the Lido Isle Community Association if it goes in that direction. Kranzley stated that the letter from Association was confusing regarding a total of 6 inches and the major concern was use of chairs on balcony. He stated he was in support of the 2 1/2 feet recommendation and the Lido Isle Community Association. ' -3- COMMISSIONERS • 2 9j. L c"L� t� 4 Noe Aye Abs Mot Noe Aye Aba 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Ausust 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Thomson spoke in support of the 3 foot balcony. Strada needs life and 2 feet were not a balcony. The neighbors have been given an opportunity to come out against this and Commission should go ahead and give them the 3 foot balcony. Commissioner Selich supported Modification Committee reasoning as well thought out regarding limits of encroachments in setback areas. However, due to neighbors in area being in support of addition he would support the Applicant. ion Motion was made for approval of a Variance that would allow a 3 foot balcony. Commissioner Gifford stated she also visited property and walked area. Commented on excellent report of Modification Committee. Gifford noted ' that this particular property has a 15 foot setback. Because this particular strada fronts Piazza Lido, the two properties that run back from Piazza Lido have their side yards against the strada with a setback that appears to be significantly less than 15 feet and appears to be 7 feet. Due to inconsistent setbacks, is willing to support a variance from 2 feet. 5 * * Amendment by Commissioner Adams to the motion for approval of S * modification of 2 1/2 foot balcony width was voted on, which MOTION ;ent * FAILED. Original motion by Commissioner Selich for approval of 3 foot :ion balcony was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. :s :s Findings: gent 1. That the proposed constriction will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use. 2. That this 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 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). -4- COMMISSIONERS r 4 1\PVn0i-P0\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES All st 10 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That Strada Florence is unique with respect to its width. 4. That the proposed encroachments will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties. 5. That the proposed construction will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties. 6. That the second floor balcony encroachment is minor in nature and provides a safety railing for that proposed second floor French doors. 7. That the proposed planter.boxes are minor architectural features. Condition: ' 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. SUBJECT: Silk Road Agenda 100 -200 West Coast highway item Nc Use Permit No. 3562. UP 3 -° Establishment of an outdoor sales facility for home furnishings and decorator items on property located in the RSC -H District. Denied Delino reported that this item had been reviewed three weeks ago and concerns included traffic impacts and attractiveness. Staff has worked with Applicants to devise a site plan. A graphic is posted as well as a copy of artist's rendering in packets. Kranzley asked about parking requirements for outdoor display. Staff reported that they are not covered. Public Hearing was opened. ' -5- . 2 W 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A.. —...+ i n i oac ROLL CALL INDEX Rick Mead of Tustin, California - one of the owners of the parent company (Manwing Company) based in Hong Kong stated that Silk Road is one of their divisions in the United States. Wendy Wong as president of the United States Division is an additional owner of the parent company and will operate Silk Road here. She is in Hong Kong, and it was noted that the Applicants had been asked to be present at this hearing. Rick Mead as additional owner of the company was present to answer questions. Mr. Mead introduced Mr. Sutherland who was asked to expand on application. Mr. Steven Sutherland, 2101 15th St., Newport Beach stated that since the hearing three weeks ago he has tried to fulfill the Commission's request to better define site plan, organize display area, and give a simple rendering of what the project might look like from the Bay Shores property entry. The property in question has been vacant for some time and the proposed use is permissible in that area. ' Adams stated that at the last meeting Sutherland indicated this would be a relatively short term use of this site. Sutherland expanded on this issue with regard to a redevelopment project with a long tern use of 30 years. Sutherland was not in position to agree to a one year limited use permit at the site. Responding to Commission queries of interim Use Permit regarding limit in duration of one year, Clauson stated that other Cities have issued Use Permits for a limited duration, but she does not believe there is authority under our Zoning Code to limit them, however, they can be reviewed after a year. A review of the Use Permit would not necessarily give Commission the power to revoke unless there is a condition violation. Staff stated that unless you changed the application to a Use Permit for temporary use in excess of 90 days, which would otherwise be granted by the Planning Director with Planning Commission approval, then a sunset date can not be put on the Use Permit. Gifford asked for clarification of Sutherland's role vis -a -vi Applicant and Mariner's Mile Business Association. Before the Commission three weeks ago, Sutherland was representing Mariner's Mile Business Association and also the Applicant as Sutherland's firm has laid out the site plan and provided the rendering. Sutherland elaborated on the lay out of the statues. Gifford ' -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •MINUTES Anaust 10. 1995 ROLL CALL I INDEX asked what color the fence would be. The fence color will be white if that is acceptable. Gifford expressed concerns of layout not being subject to creeping encroachment of merchandise. Sutherland stated that all of the display areas will be curbed. Given that this property is unsightly at present time and Applicant has shown an organized layout with clear margins for merchandise location, aisles and visual relief from stonetmerchandise and topiaries, Gifford is willing to support as this would be productive and enhanced use of property. Ridgeway stated that he would not be willing to support a white fence assuming he supports the application at all. As he fives on the water, black fences disappear against the water. He questioned the five foot height that was originally six feet. Sutherland responded there was concern for the security of items although most are stone. The fence color was left undetermined and will be addressed later. The topiaries will help to camouflage the fence. Public Hearing was closed. Open discussion - Clauson explained that approval of uses for 90 days would require review and extension. But as the Applicant has asked for a Use Permit, he would have to agree to change the application to a temporary use. Ridgeway answered that Applicant has made it clear they want action on the Use Permit. Kranzley stated that there are two issues. This is an increase in retail space from 1,700 square feet to 6,700 square feet, people will be walling the aisles purchasing items off the display. It is an increase in square footage that would require 27 parking spaces if the space was enclosed. The reason we have parking requirements is that we do not want to have back ups or overcrowding or problems going on into the street. Kranzley asked Webb if this is the busiest intersection in Newport Beach. "No," he replied, it's about the fifth busiest intersection. Kranzley stated that this is an increase in the size of the retail space or a very big sign. Basically this is a 5,000 square foot sign which demands the attention of motorists passing by. This is being done 4 COMMISSIONERS soti F�F9o�� 2 9L <F� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES I`i1417K RIMsi ROLL CALL INDEX in an area where 3 lanes of traffic abruptly become two lanes of traffic. In light of both of these issues Kranzley would not support this approval. Adams asked staff if the language of the permit is written strong enough to preclude covered retail space that would be akin to a retail store. Staff replied that condition number seven prohibits the use of tents, canopies and the use of non - permanent temporary shade structures. Adams asked if display area was like a portion of Rogers Gardens and how was the parking requirement established. Staff answered that outdoor display areas of Roger's Gardens are not provided parking. They have a number of buildings that are parked at the standard rates. Parking requirements are not imposed for outdoor display area at Roger's Gardens, not for nurseries in general. Gifford asked Kranzley if distraction to bicyclists would be more than other items. Kranzley reiterated it was not a good place to be looking in detail off the road and thereby be distracted from safe motoring. Gifford expressed ' concerns regarding parking, one property having the ability to use up all the parking in the area and short change other business or residents in the area. This particular location does not have alternative parking, and if there is not enough space, people will not patronize the business. She asked Kranzley if his concern was different than that. Kranzley responded that there is a potential for stacking when there are only 14 spaces for 6,700 square feet of shopping area. Selich asked staff if the Applicant is not successful in extending its lease after a year and has to vacate, what is the status of the Use Permit. Clauson answered that if another business wants to come in and meet the requirements and conditions of the Use Permit, they would be able to do so. It is sufficiently worded that it would be restricted to these types of display items only and not other types of items coming in. Clauson stated Condition 94 does describe what can be put in that area and the size of the area. Thomson asked if there was a height limitation to the display. Clauson reported on page 11, under visual impact of display area, the Planning Commission may wish to include a condition that would limit display items to ' -8 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4nmict 10 1005 ROLL CALL INDEX six feet or less in the front 30 feet along Dover Shore running 30 feet along West Coast Highway. Ridgeway suggested reversing the sales and parking areas that would make the fence go away somewhat more, higher items could be displayed in the back, during non - business hours the topiary and landscape area would be up front and that would be consistent with shopping centers which have the retail in the back and parking in front. As to the parking, 14 cars would be adequate, stating that the Pottery Shack in Laguna Beach does not have one parking stall. Re- design this and you would take away bike trail concerns, the site line concerns, and create something not as obtrusive to 55,000 cars per day. otion Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3562 subject to the oes findings and conditions in Exhibit A also inclusive of the height limit as yes t � * * described on Page 11 of the staff packet. MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Adams asked to be excused by 9:00 tonight and stated that the next item may conclude by that time but he would stay until 9:00. He wanted to thank staff for the inclusion of items and issues that he brought up at the last meeting regarding the restaurant application. He was pleased to see the inclusions in the staff report. They made a difference to him. Gifford went on record to support these comments. sss SUBJECT: Bandera Restaurant (A Houston's Restaurant) agenda 3201 East Coast Highway item No Use Permit No. 3564 (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review No. 73 Approv e Request to permit the demolition of an existing restaurant (former Corona Cafe) and the construction of a new full service restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverage service. Also included in the request to waive a portion of the required parking. The project is located in an area designated for specific -9 . 3 COMMISSIONERS 4 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aueust 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX area plans which a Specific Area Plan has not been adopted, therefore, a Site Plan Review is required. Delmo reported that staff report describes this project well and noted it is slightly smaller and requires slightly less parking than the existing restaurant. He directed Commission's attention to colored rendering on the board and noted that the existing restaurant has a front door facing Coast I- Eghway, and that the proposed front door faces the corner of Larkspur and Coast Highway. The colored rendering indicates the type of proposed materials. Garcia asked if the Commissioners had a copy of Addendum and additional conditions and explained that plans submitted for the project had indicated that a new curb coat was proposed on Coast Highway, however the Applicant has indicated that this was an error. They were proposing to retain the existing curb cut. However, Public Works had indicated a concern that the curb does not meet current City Standards and therefore requires that it be ' redesigned and replaced. Applicant has been apprised of this and they have no problems doing so. Two other conditions are noted regarding proposed landscaping and the existing retaining wall. Staff determined that landscaping as required by Chapter 20.72 (10% of the total site area shall be devoted to landscaped planting area) is not adequately described on the plans submitted with the emphasis on East Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue sides. Public Hearing was Hearing was opened: Applicant Eric Hildebrand, Project Manager introduced the Applicant Mr. Robert Wilkinson, an employee of Houston's Restaurant. Mr. Hildebrand proceeded to distribute items that gave close up view of elevations, letters of intent, fact sheets and examples of the menu. Mr. Robert Wilkinson, Phoenix, Arizona, thanked the Commission for considering the application and stated the addition of the restaurant will enhance the area. The new building will fit within the neighborhood, more than what is there now. This restaurant will be dinner only operation, no entertainment, and is based on family and neighborhood. A bar is within the restaurant, not separate, and is used only as a waiting area. There will be no ' -10- COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX drink specials and no entertainment. The concept is based on family. The first restaurant is operational in Scottsdale and the second one soon to open in Fairway, Kansas. The intent of the landscape is to be part of the neighborhood. The menu is based on rotisserie, chicken and lamb all from scratch. They have an eighteen year history of restaurant business and have never had to close any operation. Ridgeway asked Hildebrand to describe materials on the building. The staff report was read by Hdebrand and he agrees with all the conditions within it. Secondly, he introduced Mr. John Staley who is a Senior Associate responsible for compliance with City conditions. The addendum has been reviewed and agreed upon by Hildebrand and Applicant. W. John Staley, Laguna Hills (Steven Langford, Architect), designer of restaurant gave an in -depth description of outside materials of restaurant including weathered shingle that would silver, yellow awnings, green glazed ' roof tile, window frames are louvered with mahogany stain, incandescent back light (controlled), entry will be made of cedar, trellis design with a caramel stain. It will be subdued internally with residential scale and architectural design. Kranzley asked Wilkinson about the use of valet parking. Valet parking is not to be used at the restaurant because it is a family restaurant and the cost would have to go into menu prices or guests would have to pay. The parking situation is adequate, they are not concerned with beach parking filling up the lot. Also, because of family business, average table turn time is 45 minutes in Scottsdale. Ridgeway confirmed with staff that public parking lot adjacent to the restaurant has 33 stalls and 18 at lot across Larkspur as shown on the site plan. They are not computed as part of this project, no formal agreement. Adams asked staff if the application is set up to restrict hours of operation for this permit to evening only. Staff answered that Applicant would have to come back for another permit if they wanted to open for lunch. Adams asked if 8 1/2 feet parking stalls are standard, Webb answered, "yes." -11- COMMISSIONERS • O �9L L.`'�c5' i 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Adams asked if any other businesses in the area formally use the adjacent public parking areas to satisfy their parking requirements? Staff answered none they are aware of Selich asked Wilkinson about the plans for the existing sign structure. Wilkinson indicated the sign structure would be removed, however, Hildebrand indicated it would be used. Selich also asked about the appearance of the retaining wall down towards Bayside Drive. Selich asked Applicant if he would be agreeable to a condition to improving the wall in some way that is compatible with the building irrespective of what the structural study indicates. Hilderbrand would architecturally treat the wall. Thomson asked if the Applicant would, as an off set to the City, allow the City to put parking meters on Applicant's lot for daytime use. Ridgeway commented prior to answer by the Applicant that he felt that the City would not be allowed to do that. Clauson stated that there is a concern about taking ' private property for public use, and liability maintenance for the parking lot, if lot is not chained off because of use by delivery trucks. Gifford asked Wilkinson if he had reviewed the supplemental conditions regarding landscape along the frontage of the parking lot as it curves around the corner from Pacific Coast Highway to Marguerite Avenue. Wilkinson stated his understanding is that they have more than adequate landscape but he would be willing to go forward with landscape as mentioned in the condition. It makes reference to the frontage where the restaurant is and not necessarily where the parking lot is. Wilkinson stated that it does wrap around and includes the frontage past the structure itself and Marguerite. Selich indicated that a portion of land referred to at the corner of Coast I- ighway and MacArthur will be included in the landscape area. Applicant may have to obtain an Encroachment Permit. This is covered under condition 29. Phil Sansone, 215 Marguerite, Corona del Mar, chairman of the Corona del Mar Resident Association supported the project. In regards to the public parking lot in question, he stated that it is the most underused lot in the City. ' -12- COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 10, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX He recommends that the Applicant chain lot to increase short term parking facing Marguerite and long term parking for employees working on Bayside Drive. If lot was opened, it will be full until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Sansone expressed concern with Applicant assuming responsibility of landscape of wrap - around area due to liability . The community welcomes this project. Francis Boero and Eugene Boero, Trustees of property stated that the family has owned the property for last 50 years and that the Bandera Restaurant will address many of the resident complaints and improve area. It has been a long search for the appropriate operator for this restaurant and they feel it would be a great addition to the community. Public Hearing was closed. on * Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3564 and Site Plan * * * * ** Review No. 73 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A and No. 30 nt * that the retaining wall shall be architecturally treated to the satisfaction of Building Department and the Public Works Department. Ridgeway noted that while the hours of operation applied for are 4 p.m. to midnight, he would entertain discussion to change those hours from 11 am to 12 p.m. to give the Applicant the opportunity later to serve lunch or he would defer discussion for a separate application or amendment to this Use Permit however the Commission sees fit. Adams would prefer the Applicant to return if they decide to pursue that. Applicant was asked for input and stated that they would be happy to come back to apply for additional time, but right now they are not interested in it. Motion was voted, MOTION CARRIED Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. ' -13- 4 COMMISSIONERS cP�y F�`9Q\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aummt 10 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That 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. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls surrounding the restaurant site and a portion of the required off - street ' parking (43 spaces), will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. 7. That adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the restaurant facility. 8. The approval of Use Permit No. 3564 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 that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That a minimum of 24 parking spaces shall be provided on -site. ' -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the development standard pertaining to a portion of the required parking (43 spaces) and walls shall be waived. 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 5. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Depardnent. 7. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 8. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That the existing sewer lateral be inspected by the Utilities Division and be brought up to current standards prior to occupancy of the restaurant if it does not presently conform to current standards. 12. That the intersection of the private East Coast Highway and the private drive be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. 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. . -15- COMMISSIONERS T\�F NVRIO � o la'�p\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anonst 10 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 13. That unused driveways be removed and replaced with curb, cutter and sidewalk; that deteriorated and displaced sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Coast Highway frontage; and that the large bushes along the Larkspur Avenue parkway be removed in order to provide site distance from the adjacent driveway. That all work along the East Coast Highway frontage be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation and that all work along the Larkspur Avenue frontage be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 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. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the East Coast Highway right -of -way. 15. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 16. That a valet operations plan shall be prohibited unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 17. That all employees shall park on -site. 18. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight, daily. 19. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. -16- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A„mmt 10 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 20. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent properties and public streets. 21. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation 22. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 23. That the introduction of dancing and/or live entertainment shall be prohibited unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission 24. That the approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant as . defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose is for the sale of food and beverages with sale and service of alcoholic beverages incidental to the restaurant use. 25. That the building is required to provide the following, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, for Fire Prevention purposes: a. A U.L. Central Station monitored automatic fire sprinkler system; and b. A U.L. Standard 300 Fire Protection hood system; and c. Emergency lighting and posted occupancy loads; and d. The Fire Department connection shall be located on East Coast Highway side of the property; and e. The exit balcony must have another stair near the exit door or rate all openings (windows) adjoining balcony. -17- COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aueust 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 26. That 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. 27. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 28. That the curb cut at the entry drive at East Coast Highway shall be redesigned and replaced n accordance with City Standards 166-L, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 29. That landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.72 ' and further that particular attention for landscaping be provided on East Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue frontages of the subject property, to minimize the visual impact of the parking lot area. That a landscape plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and the Public Works Department for visual treatment as well as sight distance. 30. That a condition survey of the existing retaining wall be conducted to determine the structural integrity and that the recommendations of that study shall be incorporated into the construction plans for the facility to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Public Works Department. That the wall shall be architecturally treated, regardless of the structural recommendations of the condition study, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. ' -18- COMMISSIONERS O • �F O 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX B. Site Plan Review No. 73 Findings: 1. That development of the subject property will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan or Specific Area Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development in Specific Area Plan Areas characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 5. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 6. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 7. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on -site which should be protected. ' -19- COMMISSIONERS • 4 Mot AYE Abe 1/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Au¢ust 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 9. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 9. The development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 10. That there are no archeological or historical resources on -site. 11. That the proposed development has been designed so as to prevent any adverse effect on the neighboring residential property. Conditions: 1. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3564 shall be fulfilled. ' 2. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chairman Ridgeway excused Commissioner Adams. Agenda SUBJECT: Bars & TheatersNightclubs Definitions - Item Nc .ion Motion was made to continue to September 16th. MOTION CARRIED. A 825 :s * * * x * Continc ent * s s s to 9/7i ' -20- red '95 COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L MINUTES Auaust 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX SUBJECT: Zoning Code, Specialty Food Service Appeals Procedure Agenda Amendment No. 829 No Item N Amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to reinstate '22 notice and appeal procedures for specialty food service applications. Delino stated that the proposed amendment was composed by the City Attorney in consultation with the proposing Council Member. It sets up a different review and appeal process for specialty food and was in direct response to a particular problem on Marine Avenue regarding a specialty food use. There is one minor change on the staff report, the may was crossed out and shall put in its place. He would recommend it to go back to mU. Sentence will read, "The Planning Commission may preside over the appeal, or may appoint...... " Ridgeway asked Delino for clarification of sentences, "The Modifications ' Committee shall deny the appeal if there is substantial evidence that the proposed specialty food service complied with the criteria specified in this Section. The decision of the Modifications Committee shall be final" Ridgeway asked if this could be appealed to the Commission. Delino stated that this proposal is a compromise. Clauson stated that there had been no appeal at all from anyone in the area This allows for an appeal by both Applicant and citizen. Gifford asked if there was a problem with two different levels of appeal. Applicant can appeal to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council, all others can only appeal to the Modifications Committee. Gifford asked if that met fairness and due process. Clauson stated that as long as the due process is set up there should be no problem. Delino explained that the same type of concerns were expressed by City Council and what is presented here is precisely what the Council and City Attorney dictated and is being presented in that manner. Public Hearing was opened. Public Hearing was closed. -21- 5 ed COMMISSIONERS 4 No( Ay( Ab: 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aummt 10. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Gifford asked staff if in other appeal processes provided for in the City is it possible for any citizen other than Applicant to appeal. Clauson answered other appeal provisions allow for any citizen to appeal. Clauson clarified that this is the only appeal provision that citizens can appeal within the Zoning content. Ridgeway stated that this action is in response to relaxing the standards for specialty foods in a previous ordinance. Delino stated they are treated exactly the same as retail use for parking within the City Standards. The previous process was to go to the Modifications Committee and the change was to take it away from the Modifications Committee and essentially make it a matter of right. This is an attempt to provide more appeal and review. Ridgeway asked Delino if the Economic Development Committee was apprised of this and Delino answered `yes" and "they did not like it." �n * Motion was made and voted for approval to Adopt Resolution No. 1399 Recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 829, an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to reinstate notice and appeal procedures for specialty food service applications; modify or deny the request. Gifford asked Clauson if in her opinion it constitutes due process to have the appeal body be a body subordinate to the decision making body. Clauson answered yes, as long as it is an independent review. S Ridgeway called for the vote, MOTION CARRIED. :5 aent SUBJECT: Mariner's Hide Specific Plan Area, change in permitted uses Agenda Amendment No. 830 item No. Amend Chapter 20.62 of the Municipal to change the permitted uses dealing Approved with auto related uses. ' -22- 0 COMMISSIONERS •�9o�4y��rn �y `�y�9o�9 Mot Aye Abs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anonet 10 1995 ROLL CALL I INDEX Delino stated that this is an introduction of the Amendment and if the Planning Commission introduces it, it will come back at the next meeting for a public hearing. ion * * M Motion was made to adopt the resolution of intent that sets Amendment No. S * * * * * * * * * * 8 830 for public hearing at the Planning Commission Meeting of August 24th, ent * * * * 1 1995. MOTION CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - A verbal report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - not discussed. COMMISSIONERS • o��y��9�90 <!� 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES An st 10 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report. f.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Selich to be excused from Planning Commission Meeting of August 24, 1995 - All Ayes g.) Discussion of staff report format - none. Other items - Ridgeway brought up issue of affordable housing to general plan; Patty Temple Advanced Planning Project Manager expanded on subject. # ## ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m. MICHAEL KRANZLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ' -24-