Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/1998n L-A • 40 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams and Kranzley - AII Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Robin Clouson - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Services Manager Ginger Varin - Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Marc Myers - Associate Planner Minutes of September 10,1998: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on, to approve as written, the September 10, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Ridgeway Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Fuller Public Comments none Posting of the Agenda: Ashley Selich, Adams, Gifford, Kranzley The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 18, 1998 outside of City Hall. INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Fletcher Jones Motorcars 3300 Jamboree Road • Use Permit No. 3565A Request to approve a use permit for the construction of an off -site parking lot for employees on vacant land beneath the State Route 73 (San Joaquin Hills Tollway) bridges spanning San Diego Creek along the future extension of Bayview Way. The construction consists of an access road from the dealership, a parking lot and a new riding and hiking trail. The surface parking lot will accommodate approximately 246 parking spaces. The parking lot will be used for employee parking only, and is not intended to be used for inventory storage. This item was removed from the calendar at the applicant's request. SUBJECT: Fleming's Prime Steakhouse 455 Newport Center Drive • Use Permit No. 3637 • Request to permit the establishment of a new, on -sale alcoholic beverage outlet pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code. The alcoholic beverage outlet is in conjunction with a new 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 specificallyfor alcoholic beverage service only. Marc Myers, Associate Planner, noting this is the first use permit pursuant to the new Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance, presented the conclusions made when analyzing the factors associated with the required findings in the ordinance: • This type of steak house does not presently exist within the city, • The facility will operate as a restaurant. • Alcoholic beverage service will be incidental to the primary operation. • The use serves the convenience and necessity of the public. • Although the project is located in an area where the crime rate, the number of alcohol related arrests and concentration of alcohol outlet exceeds the city wide average, this census tract is the second lowest populated one in the City. • While the liquor licenses to population is high, there are few residents impacted by the alcohol related use since the restaurant is more isolated from residential areas than other commercial areas. • No residential districts, day care centers schools or parks are in the vicinity of the project site. • INDEX Item No. 1 UP 3565 A Item No. 2 UP 3637 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Myers answered that condition 6 specifies the hours that were requested by the applicant. The vacant space behind the Hard Rock Cafe and this proposed project is owned by The Irvine Company and there is no indication as to what it will be occupied by. Public Comment was opened. Bill Allen, CEO and partner of Fleming's Steakhouse, 16 Sunset Cove, Newport Coast. He is a partner with Paul Fleming. They have been in the restaurant business for over forty years, opening and managing over 200 restaurants across the country. He stated that they accept and understand the findings and conditions of Use Permit No. 3637. He asked for clarification of the hours, stating it is their intent of the proposed hours as the hours to seat people and expects that the service of food and beverage would last until the guests were finished. This is an upscale steakhouse and is not intended to be a bar. The service of alcoholic beverage is intended to compliment the high -end meals served. Staff noted that typically the hours of operation imposed are the actual hours that patrons are inside the facility. The Commission and staff can come up with a period of time that would be typical of meal service given this new • information by the applicant. Following discussion, the closing hours were suggested to be Sunday through Thursday, 12:00 a.m. and, 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve Use Permit No. 3637 with the findings and conditions in Exhibit A with a modification to condition 6 to have the closing hours Sunday through Thursday at 12:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 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. INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 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. The Planning Commission has considered the five factors for reviewing a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance. The project is in an area of over- concentrationof alcohol outlets and where the crime rate exceeds the Citywide average by more than 2070, and a high number of alcohol - related arrests have been recorded in the past. However, the project is in an area that is primarily commercial and has very few residents, and residents in nearby areas are not impacted by the concentration of liquor licenses. Further, the alcoholic beverage service is incidental to a steakhouse restaurant, which will add to the variety of restaurant choices in the City, thereby serving the convenience and necessity of the public. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the approval of the Use Permit is appropriate in this case. 4. Approval of Use Permit No. 3637 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 reasons stated above and for the following reasons: 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 alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary restaurant use, with the bar area limited to 8.570 of the main dining level. 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: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. n LJ INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 2. This approval is for on -sale alcoholic beverage service only. The off -sale of alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption is prohibited. 3. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 4. 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. 5: The selling of alcoholic beverages for consumption outside the building shall be prohibited unless an accessory outdoor dining permit is approved. 6. The permitted hours of operation shall be from 11:30 a.m. to 1 Q00 per. 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 a.m. to 11:80 p. . 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. • 7. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 8. The exteriorof 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 sidewalkswithin 20 feet of the premises. 9. 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 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 10. 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. 0 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Standard Requirements 1. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 2. Dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordancewith Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. 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. 4. 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. SUBJECT: Ward Residence (John E. Wells, Architect) 116 Kings Place • Variance No. 1224 Request to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 11 feet. Public comment was opened. John E. Wells, 4320 Campus Drive spoke representing the applicant. As the architect of the project, he noted that this was a difficult lot to work with. The topography is very severe, over 22 %, making it difficult to make a reasonable house unless the height limitation is exceeded. The house on the left has had a similar variance. At commission inquiry, he explained that the height limit from the road is not being exceeded. He added that the highest part of the roof is 12 feet above the top of the curb on Kings Place. There are two story homes on either side, and this project maintains a single story from the road. Presenting pictures, he explained the heights within the neighborhood, the maximum roof line and the extension of the project over the hill. Noting the exhibits on the wall, Mr. Wells pointed out the projections of the existing homes and the existing and proposed base of the project. n U •II.I)]�:1 Item No. 3 V. No. 1224 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Don Ward, owner of 116 Kings Place stated that he has lived at that residence since 1978 and had torn down the old house and built a new one ten years ago and has enjoyed a magnificent 180 - degree view. The main view is across the bay, all the way to Saddleback and down the channel. With construction of the house next door, it obliterates the view of the bay by 45 %. Our house is lower than the new house that is being constructed and the one on the left is also higher. We are proposing to go straight out on our lot to recapture our views. There have been numerous variances given within the neighborhood. Carl Kemp, 128 Kings Place spoke in opposition to this variance presenting a photo depicting where his view will be obstructed if this proposed project is built. The concern of the neighborhood is that this is an attempt to recapture the applicant's view. This is an issue as the applicant is going straight out and will take a portion of my view that is in the proposed variance area that this is being requested. He asked that the project be built within the envelope and deny the variance as it may result in a "range war." All of the neighborswill also ask for variances and this will lead to a contentious atmosphere. He then presented a petition that has been in the neighborhood for a period of time that basically asks about forming an association to better prepare for challenges of proposed variances that do not enhance the beauty, friendliness, or value of properties in the neighborhood. Proceeding to the • exhibit on the wall, Mr. Kemp showed the half of the proposed structure out of the building envelope. Mr. Kemp concluded stating that the property owner could design a roof element that is not continuous, but steps down to follow the slope that would meet the permitted height requirements. At commission inquiry, regarding opposition of the addition at 112 Kings Place, Ms. Temple answered, that project conforms to the height limit and required no discretionary action. The following people spoke in opposition to granting this variance for similar reasons stated above. Brian Brooks, 120 Kings Place - will remove 807. of my view and this variance is of a greater magnitude than previously approved by City. Larry Chank, 44919 Gulf Center Parkway, Indio - appeared as a representative of the Hooten Family Trust, owners of 112 Kings Place. He read the following letter into the record in opposition to the variance, which had also been received by the Planning Commission and staff. The main points included in the letterwere: The Hootens have been long time developers within the City of Newport Beach having constructed projects at Fashion Island, on Von Karman Blvd • and in Big Canyon Country Club. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 • The building height restrictions were established to provide a fair and equitable policy for the construction of single family residences. • We constructed our house within these established criteria and, in fact, were told we could not expand our house outside the existing envelope. Everyone who builds in this area must contend with the same circumstancesof front to back and side to side slopes. • The building restrictions were developed to provide a consistent criteria for the owners to follow to allow the community the assurances that this critical hillside would be developed in a fashion which would not detract from the community. • Allowing this addition to protrude outside the established building envelope will set .a horrible precedent for the continuing -development and redevelopmentof this critical hillside. • The subject lot has an existing 4,300 square foot:residence with the ability to expand by "stepping down" the slope, which the established city criteria provides for. • There is no hardship on the owner - the existing criteria does not make his current residence untenable or eliminate his ability to expand his living space within the established building envelope: • The grades as presented by this applicant have not been certified by an engineer. • • The addition, in effect, is a full story above the building envelope. This represents almost the entire addition, not just a corner or a few feet of intrusion required to keep the building symmetrical. • It is actually easier and cheaper to build within the envelope (for example - no caissons would be required). • The expanded house square footage is possible to build within the existing envelope withoutthe variance- thus no special circumstances exist. • The applicant states the variance is needed to bring his house up to the standard of the neighborhood. However, the average new or remodeled house on Kings Place is 4,500 to 6,000 square feet of residence built within the existing building envelope. • The applicant's lot is not unique; all of the bluff lots on Kings Place are sloping; and we were told when designing and processing our house, the variance process is not thereto compensate for side sloping or views. • Granting of this variance would constitute special privilege and set a very undesirable precedent. • The applicant's design is excessive- he is asking for a full story with 12 to 14- foot ceilings. • All of the Kings Place houses on the bluff would love to build straight out from the street and not adhere to the height restriction. • We worked closely with the city and very hard with staff (including major modifications such as lowering ceiling heights, relocating decks, and redesigning the roof to insure compliance with the existing height restrictions. Certainly it was costly and, at time,.frustrating - but it did not • constitute hardship. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 • We ask you to deny the applicant's request for a height variance and not establish a precedent that would be detrimental to the neighborhood and the city residents. Tom Laly, 108 Kings Place - did not express support or opposition but stated that there are houses in the area being expanded to 8, 000+ square feet. Mr. Wells was asked by Commission to respond to any items brought up by the previous speakers. Mr. Wells answered that the topography of 112 Kings Place projects out farther than this site. There is not a full story above the 24 -foot height limitation; it is only a portion. Commissioner Fuller asked about depicting the maximum envelope that could be built to on some sort of drawing or photograph. It would be helpful to know what the maximum is that you could build to. It helps the Commission to make a decision as to how much of view impairment we are looking at. Could you illustrate to the Commission what could be built to without coming here tonight looking for a variance? • Mr. Wells noted this is what the Wards want to build. If you want to make them terrace down the hill, this would make a rather unreasonable living room floor plan. The drawing could be revised to show the envelope. The roof is proposed to be flat to tie into the existing roofline. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that the addition could be pulled back about five to six feet and be in conformance with the 24 -foot height limit to which Mr. Wells stated he would have to review that. Discussion ensued about the topography of the area and natural grade measurements. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the Commission does not usually protect private views in Newport Beach. A variance request is asking for an exception to the rules. At that point in time, the Commission does look at views and view impairmentof the neighbors. The Commission makes it clear that the variances do not set precedence. In this case, however, if this variance was granted, I believe it would set a precedence. How would we be able to deny the neighbor to the north going out farther and his neighbor to the north going out a little farther because he has lost his view, etc. Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1224 based on the findings contained in Exhibit B. • Commissioner Gifford stated that her experience with variances on the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 (— ommission nas oeen Tnat tnere OTTen Is a Trace Ott wnen someone is aSKing Tor a variance as they are asking for something more. They would make a real eff ort to accommodate their neighbors and the neighborhood. It seems to me in those cases of other variances that I can recall, the side setbacks have been increased which would help the angle of the neighbors' view or other kinds of accommodations. In this case, it seems the benefit is really for the applicant to maintain the aesthetics of the roofline. It makes a very nice elevation, but, there is no real benefit or accommodation to any of the surrounding parties other than the applicant's own residence. I would therefore, not be inclined to support the variance and I plan on supporting the motion that was just made. Commissioner Ashley stated his support for the motion, as this would not create a hardship to the applicant if this project was pulled back as suggested by Commissioner Ridgeway. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that this application has a precedent setting nature, and doesn'twant to start a war in the neighborhood over views. Commissioner Fuller likes the maintenance of the garage level from Kings Road. He made the Motion for a continuance of this matterfor fourweeks to allow the applicant time to ameliorate the view concerns as expressed by the • Commission and the neighbors. Commissioner Gifford stated that we could not make a finding that it would be an undue hardship for the applicant to develop and enjoy the property to the full extent within the allowed building envelope. I am not sure that re- working really changes that, at least in my view. They may not be able to maintain the roofline they wish, but that does not come into the purview of the findings that we would need to make to grant this variance. Chairperson Selich supporting the motion stated that the house could be done within the building envelope or that the encroachment into the height limit would be less severe. He then asked the Assistant City Attorney if the applicant desires a continuance, is the Commission able to grant the continuance with a motion on the floor? Ms. Clauson stated that the public hearing was closed. There is no opportunity for the applicant to ask for a continuance. Generally, it is always a good idea to allow an applicant an opportunityfor a continuance. Commissioner Kra nzley noted that the applicant has the ability to appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Gifford supported re- opening the public comment to ask for a continuation. 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Public commentwas re- opened. Mr. Wells asked for a continuance to re -work the project by lowering the rooflineand redevelop this project to be more compatible with the heightlimit. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kronzley withdrew his motion and stated he would support a motion to continue. He expressed his concerns that he hoped the applicant had heard the concerns of the Commission. He then asked that when the applicant comes back, the Commission have drawings and illustrations that are clearer than what was received tonight. He found these very difficult to understand. CommissionerAdoms noted for the applicant that no matter what changes he makes that he could. not make the findings outlined in Exhibit A. When a variance of this nature and this. severity is before the Commission, other applicants have come in with much more sophisticated exhibits that try to change the three dimensional impacts. Photos are taken from all of the impacted neighbors' homes and living rooms, story poles erected that show all four comers of the building to show the impact in a three dimensional scheme. • Commissioner Ashley asked that the grade levels be certified when presented at the meeting. It is possible for the house to be constructed within the envelope. Chairperson Sellch re- stated the motion made by Commissioner Fuller to continue this item to October 22, 1998. He encouraged the applicant to redesign this project within the envelope. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kronzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Revised Street Names for Bonita Canyon (Final Tract No. 15517). Adopt Resolution No. 1477, changing street name "Oakmont' to "Montgomer,/' and "Sheffield" to "Palazzo" in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community District. Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to adopt Resolution No. 1477 changing street name "Oakmont" to "Montgomer/' and "Sheffield" to "Palazzo' in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community District. INDEX Item No. 4 FTM 15517 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Mrs. Wood reported that at the meeting of September 14th, the City Council approved. an agreement with the Urban Design Studio to prepare a revised sign regulations for the Balboa Peninsula; and they approved the change in the heights for Pacific Bay Homes. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c.) Matters, which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d.) Matters, which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff, report - none. e.) Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 P.M. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment