Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford and Kranzley - All Commissioners were present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Robin Clauson - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford - Senior Planner Genia Garcia - Associate Planner Marc Myers - Associate Planner Ginger Varin - Planning Commission Executive Secretary • Minutes of November 4..1999: Motion was made by Commission Fuller and voted on, to approve the minutes of November 4, 1999 as written. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Ashley Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 12 1999. \J INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 SUBJECT: 407 Bolsa Avenue Vance Collins and Ian Fettes (applicants) • General Plan Amendment 91 -2 • Amendment No. 894 • Resubdivision No. 1075 • Modification No. 4954 Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial (SP -9) to Two - Family Residential, to allow for the construction of attached two-family residential subdivision. The application includes: • amending Specific Plan No. 9 to remove the two lots from the plan, • amend Districting Map No. 25 to rezone the property to the R -2 District, • a resubdivision to create two parcels and allow them to be used for condominium purposes, • a modification permit to allow: • a 2 foot encroachment into the 4 foot side yard setbacks with a fireplace woodbox and • a 2 foot building encroachment into the rear 10 foot setback area, and • property line walls ranging from 6 feet up to 12 feet in height in the • front and side setback areas where the Code limits the height of walls and fences to 3 feet in the front setback and 6 feet in the side and rear setbacks. Ms. Temple stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to December 9, 1999. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to continue this item to December 9, 1999. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None axt SUBJECT: 4110 MacArthur Boulevard The Pacific Club (Brooke B. Bentley, General Manager) • General Plan Amendment No 97 -3(E), • Amendment No. 890; and • Use Permit No. 3208 Amended • Request to permit the phased expansion of an existing private membership 2 INDEX GPA 91 -2 A No. 894 Resub No. 1075 Modification No. 4954 Continued to 12/09/1999 Item No. 2 GPA 97 -3 (E) A 890 UP 3208A . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 athletic club. The project is an expansion of the private athletic club by 15,000 square feet to accommodate additional member serving facilities including accessory athletic, dining and support uses. The project involves the approval of: • a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment to Increase the square footage entitlement in Statistical Area L -4, Koll Center Newport, Office Site A, from 874,346 to 889,346 square feet, and • an amendment to Use Permit No. 3208 to allow: • expansion of the existing athletic club facility, and • an increase in the floor area devoted to alcoholic beverages sales in the dining facility, • the establishment of a new on -sale alcoholic beverage outlet (pub /cocktail lounge) in the fitness center, persuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Muicipal Code; and • a parking demand study. Commissioner Fuller, stating he is an equity member of the Pacific Club, recused himself from deliberation on this matter. Associate Planner Marc Myers noted that the request includes expansion of the . existing alcohol beverage service in conjunction with a new pub or cocktail lounge located in the fitness center building of the facility. The pub will provide menu service at all times the facility is in operation and provides a more relaxed casual area for the club members to socialize without the constraints of the dress code requirements of the main dining area. The pub design includes limited seating and will be open to club members only. Although the pub area includes a bar area, it is a small percentage of the overall dining and seating area of the facility. Alcoholic beverage service is typical in this type of facility and should remain ancillary to the club's primary dining facility and food service use. Since Koll Center Planned District Regulations do not establish a parking requirement for the private clubs, or athletic club uses, a parking demand study was prepared. Parking for the buildings in this portion of the block is within a gated area and three buildings share the parking. The results of the parking demand study indicate that during the peak time periods for the buildings in this block a surplus number of spaces will be available in the onsite parking areas after the proposed expansion of the club. The shared parking in the block will also provide additional parking should the need arise. The proposed expansion complies with the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations and is intended to improve the facility for the existing members and no increase in the membership is proposed. Chairperson Selich, noting the letter dated October 14m, inquired about the timeline for construction and entitlement approval by the City. • Mr. Myers answered that portion of the letter referring to construction within 4 to INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 4 r/2 years refers to Phase 2 - additions to the main building. Phase 1 - additions to the athletic facilities refers to beginning construction six months after the City's approval, which is considered exercising the Use Permit. Ms. Temple added that when the City has dealt with Master Plan Use Permits, implementation of the first phase vests the entire approval. Public comment was opened. Mr. Pat Allen, of Langdon Wilson Architects, 1230 Devon Lane, noted that the applicant understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3E, Amendment No. 890 and Use Permit No. 3208A. Mr. Brook Bentley, 27 Balboa Coves in answer to Commissioner Kranzley's concern about Condition 4 regarding the enrollment of 740 total members of various standing, noted his agreement. He added that this number is all - inclusive. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker added the following to Condition 5. "...shall be • implemented as approved" Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approved General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 E, Amendment No. 890, and Use Permit No. 3208 A, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A with the addition to Condition 5, "..shall be implemented as approved." Ayes: Ashley, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Recused: Fuller EXHIBIT "A' FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment No 97 -3(E), Amendment No. 890 and Use Permit No. 3208 Amended A. Mitigated Negative Declaration Findinas: • 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been 4 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 prepared In compliance with the Environmental the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. On the basis of the analysis set forth In the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Mitigation Measures: • 1. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04 or applicable sections). 2. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. 3. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. 4. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. • 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 construction traffic control plan which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning /directional signage to the Planning and Traffic Department for review and approval. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department and a street /sidewalk closure permit from the Revenue Division. 6. The applicant shall submit a traffic control plan and a construction access plan to address construction traffic and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a street /sidewalk closure permit from the Revenue Division. 7. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed 401 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. 8. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. 9. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department confirming availability of water and wastewater services to and from the site. 10. Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, light fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information to determine the • extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 • information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of use and occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this mitigation measure. 11. A qualified archeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. It significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. The observers shall prepare and submit to the City a written report describing findings and making recommendations for further action. 12. A qualified paleontologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the paleontologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. The observers shall prepare and submit to the City a written report describing findings and making recommendations for further action. A. General Plan Amendment No. 97-3 Q: Adopt Resolution No. (Attached) recommending to the City Council the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (E). B. Amendment No. 890: Adopt Resolution No. (Attached), recommending to the City Council adoption of Amendment No. 890. Use Permit No 3208 Amended Fin in s: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative Professional Financial Commercial" uses. A private club use with alcoholic beverage service is considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact, based on information presented and incorporated into the negative declaration. 3. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments 4P 7 received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 that the project, as conditioned, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 4. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. 5. A Parking Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour parking demand and circulation system on site in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and has been reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. • 6. The Parking Study indicates that there is adequate parking available on site for the existing and proposed uses. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons: • The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of desired beverages in a private club setting. • The percentage of alcohol - related arrests In the police reporting district in which the project is proposed is less than the percentage citywide, and the adjacent reporting districts had alcohol - related arrests percentages that were also below the citywide percentages. There are no day care centers, schools, or park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the project site. • The Police Department does not anticipate problems from the proposed expansion of the existing use. 8. Approval of Use Permit No. 3208 to permit the expansion of a private club with a cocktail lounge and service of on -sale alcoholic • beverages will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The athletic club use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since private club uses are typically allowed in commercial districts. • A cocktail lounge is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since cocktail lounges uses are typically found in private clubs and allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been incorporated which wlll minimize potential impacts. • The Issues related to access and site circulation have been adequately addressed by conditions of approval. • No significant adverse traffic or circulation impacts are anticipated from the proposed project as determined by the Parking Demand Study. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the private athletic club facility. • • Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and 0 proposed uses. • The proposed use is a conflnuation of the existing private club food service use which serves its members and their guests only, and not the general public. • The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of the facility as a private athletic club. • The establishment will provide regular food service from the full menu at all times the facility is open. • The size of the pub bar area seating is a relatively mall percentage of the floor area of the entire facility. • Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages. • The proposal includes no physical improvements which will conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 0 11.11 *3 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. All previously approved findings and conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3208 shall remain in effect unless otherwise modified by these conditions of approval. 3. The requirement of one hundred forty -four parking spaces (144 spaces) shall be provided on -site for the proposed use. 4. The number of members Involved in the private club facility shall not exceed its current enrollment of 740 total members of various standing. 5. A valet operating plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed project, and shall be implemented as approved. 6. All employees shall park on -site. • 7. The applicant shall submit documentation to the City that indicates that the shared parking area to be removed from the total available parking has been approved by Koll Center. 8. The entire site including the exterior of the building, the parking areas, and sidewalk shall be maintained free of litter and debris and kept in a clean and orderly manner at all times. 9. A hydrology study of the existing retention basin Qake) shall be made by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the effects of the proposed grading on the capacity of the basin. The study shall be completed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 10. The retention basin shall be modified in conformance with any recommendations of the hydrology study required in Condition No. 9 in order that the basin is maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 11. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided with drains directly into the sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternative drainage plan. • 12. A lot line adjustment shall be approved if any proposed structure crosses 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 an existing parcel line. 13. The athletic facility shall be for the exclusive use of members of the of the Pacific Club and their guests, and not to be available for use by members of the general public. 14. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering in the "pub" at all times the private athletic club facility is open for business, 15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 16. Ali mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be fully screened from view of nearby properties and public streets, from Von Karman Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and the surrounding properfies (including from above). All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters located in the trash enclosure, or a container otherwise screened from view of adjoining properties and streets, except when placed for pick- up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. • 17. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 18. The approval is only for the establishment of a private athletic club facility speciali7ing in dining and athletics only. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a public restaurant, night club, bar or cabaret as defined by Tifle 20 of the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 19. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 20. This approval Is for on-sale alcoholic beverage service only. The off -sale of alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption is prohibited. 21. Alcoholic beverage service shall be permitted in the outdoor dining area upon approval of the Police Department and the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. • 22. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different 11 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or leasing company. 23. Dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 24. 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. 25. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of 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. 26. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. Standard Reauirements The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. • 3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this use permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 5. 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. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. • 8. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 9. Adequate hood equipment with smoke and odor control capabilities shall be provided to serve the facility. Additionally, the hood system shall include a charcoal filtering system for the control of odors and a grease collection system for the capture /removal of grease accumulation. The hood system shall be subject to approval by the Building Department and the Planning Director. The operator shall also provide for monthly cleaning and maintenance of the hood vents, ducting and filters. The operator shall keep a maintenance schedule on -site with appropriate record keeping of equipment servicing available for inspection by the Code Enforcement Division upon request. 10. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards established by Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing In nolse /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant use and to develop a set of corrective measures necessary In order to insure compliance. 11. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall expire within 12 months from the date of 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 12. 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. 13. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.0590A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Ristorante Mamma Gina's (Piero Pierattoni, applicant) 251 East Coast Highway • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 49 (Amended) • A request to increase the closing hour of the existing outdoor dining use. The hours as approved by the Planning Commission are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily. The applicant requests to change the closing hour to Midnight, daily. 9 Ms. Temple noted that this item came to the Planning Commission, after approval by staff, upon referral by City Council. At that hearing, considerable concern was expressed by the Commission regarding the potential noise from the proposed patio to disturb persons living in the Unda Isle Community. As a result, the Commission altered staffs original conditions to require the closing of the outdoor patio at 10:00 PM. The applicant is now requesting to expand the hours of operation on the patio to midnight daily. Ms. Temple noted there are physical features of the outdoor patio that make such a change non - impacting to the community. However, staff is still concerned about the proposal. The hour of 10 PM is a time frame when the ambient noise tends to decrease. At the same time, people tend to become more sensitive to the sounds in the environment. Should this application be approved by the Planning Commission, a time frame could be set within which this permit can be brought back for further review by the Planning Commission. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that two uses came back for review by the Planning Commission based on a timed review schedule. A standard condition that the Planning Commission can call this matter up is included in the findings and conditions. 14 INDEX Item No. 3 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 49A • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 Public comment was opened. Mr. Piero Pierattoni, applicant, at Commission Inquiry noted the following: • This is a classic, romantic setting on the bay. • Patio is a big draw. • Hard to bring people back in early at night, especially during the summer. • Proved over the past year, that they have caused no problem with residents. Ms. Temple noted that there have been no complaints during the past year to either the Police Department or Planning Department. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford noted that this is an example of what the Planning Commission is attempting to achieve. Having operators who commit to the findings and conditions that are imposed in an effort to have nice entertainment facilities co -exist with the City's mixed business and residential areas. We should show our appreciation of his compliance with those conditions by approving this and only calling it up if we do receive complaints. • Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford for approval of Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 49 A. Commissioner Kranzley, agreeing with previous testimony, noted that you could not hear any noise from this patio. They have proven to be a good operator and have done a good job. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 49 (Amended) FINDINGS: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program designate the property for "Recreational and Marine • Commercial" land use. The proposal is for a change in the hours of 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 operation of an existing outdoor dining use that is accessory to an existing restaurant, a permitted use within that designation. 2. 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). 3. The approval of Outdoor Dining Permit No. 49 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace. comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious to property or improvements in the area for the following reasons: • The proposed change in hours of the outdoor dining use is accessory to the existing restaurant use. • The extended hours of the outdoor dining area use, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding land uses because the required combination of the retractable awning and the required patio screening effectively prevent noise from adversely impacting the nearby residential uses. Additionally, no noise generating activities are allowed outside of the facility (i.e., entertainment). • 4. The proposal is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons: • The use is accessory to and an extension of the existing restaurant use and not proposed to change by this approval. • The accessory outdoor dining area is not in a location, which would result in a reduction of existing parking spaces, and the change in hours does not physically alter the existing facility. • The use of the retractable awning is consistent with the restrictions on the use of solid roof structures and with the Intent and purpose of the accessory outdoor dining to provide outdoor dining opportunities. CONDITIONS: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, revised floor plan (as approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 4, 1998) and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. All conditions of approval of Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 49 shall remain in force, except as modified by this approval. 3. The hours of operation of the outdoor dining area are limited to 11:00 . a.m. to Midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 subject to the approval of an amendment to this permit, an amendment to Use Permit No. 651 or the filing of a new use permit application. The patio shall be closed and not utilized during the non- specified operational hours after Midnight. The interior restaurant operation shall be governed by the hours specified in conjunction with the approval of Use Permit No. 651 and its amendments. 4. The retractable awning located over the outdoor dining area shall remain in the fully extended open position during the evening use of the patio dining area. The awning shall be maintained in a clean and orderly and fully functional operation for the duration of the outdoor dining use. 5. The noise generated by the outdoor dining activity shall comply v the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Co, That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. & 10:00 p.m. 10:0 .m. & 7:00 a.m. interior exterior interior exterior • Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: NIA 60 dBA NIA 50 dBA Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 6. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer, selection approved by the Planning Director, specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the outdoor dining activity to Insure compliance with these conditions, If required by the Planning Director. 7. The proprietor shall continue to actively control any noise generated by the patrons of the facility. 8. The Planning Department shall review the outdoor dining use within sixty days after implementation of the extended hours of operation to determine the effectiveness of the conditions of approval to prevent noise problems. 9. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this outdoor dining permit, upon a finding of failure to comply with conditions set forth in Chapter 20.82 of the • Municipal Code or other applicable conditions and regulations 17 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 governing this approval. The Planning Director may also revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this approval, causes Injury, or Is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious to property or improvements in the area. 10. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Old Newport Development (Old Newport Boulevard, LLC, applicant) 455 Old Newport Boulevard • Variance 1233 • Use Permit 47 • Modification 5005 • Lot Line Adjustment 99 -16 • A variance to exceed the height limits by approximately 131/2 feet for a proposed office building. The application also includes a use permit to allow approximately 1,621 square feet of additional floor area, a modification permit to allow tandem parking, and a lot line adjustment to merge three existing lots into a single lot. Senior Planner, Patrick Alford noted the Public Works Department is requesting, if this project Is approved, to add an additional condition that states that all employees are to park on site. At Commission inquiry regarding the parking requirement if this building becomes a medical building use, Mr. Alford answered that with the 14 tandem spaces there is a potential for those spaces not to be used. The building is not under parked in terms of the required parking for a medical office. The parking ratio is correct for medical office use. However, if the parking is not convenient, we could end up with an on site shortage that could bleed over into the residential streets. Commissioner Fuller clarified that what is being suggested is that the parking ratio, as set out here, is for medical use. Would it be different if it was for general office use? He was answered that the same parking is required for general office and medical use. Commissioner Fuller then referenced a comparison that he had asked staff to prepare that shows the comparisons at 415 and 455 Old Newport. He asked if the use at 415 was medical. Ms. • Temple answered that it is a medical office use. 18 INDEX Item No. 4 V No. 1233 PDUP No. 47 Modification No. 5005 NBLLA No. 99 -16 Continued to 01/06/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 Commissioner Gifford asked how many spaces the employees would take up in addition to the 14 tandem spaces. She was answered that It varies from use to use as this proposed project could have multiple tenants. Staff feels that the tandem spaces are appropriately reserved for the employees, as the visitors to the site would be less inclined to use them. The restriction for parking on site, will be whatever is necessary to accommodate the number of employees. If they park off -site, it would be a violation of that condition. Public comment was opened. Richard Haskell, 255 Evening Canyon, as one of the owners, noted his thanks for staff's time and efforts. He commented that he would have no problem with the recommendation that employees park on site. Chairperson Selich asked about a design of the building to allow for more parking spaces under the building or on the ground level to eliminate the tandem parking. Mr. Haskell answered that his group was trying to maximize the square footage and the limitation for that site is actually the parking. The . underneath parking is a nice architectural feature, and also gives the physicians preferred parking In the shade all day but the drainage is a problem. Richard Higby, lawyer for property owner, Mr. Minney, noted that for about six years, the owners and staff worked out a Specific Plan for the area of Old Newport Boulevard. It was agreed that parking requirements and height requirements were all balanced out and fair to everyone. The owners of this proposed project have made an application for a building that is about 12% more square footage than the normal parking would require. They have stated that tandem parking will solve the problem and that any overflow parking on the street would by okay. The applicants have asked that the Specific Plan be changed with re- zoning for them to be allowed to build a building bigger (13 '/z feet) than everyone else with less parking required of the existing buildings. Mr. Minney's lot shares a zero setback with this lot. A 40- foot high wall that will block his sunlight will impact Mr. Minney's lot. A variance requires hardships, these people have displayed their hardships as they do not want to do any grading, want 12% more square footage than the zoning allows and they can't fit enough parking on the lot. Theses are not hardships, as every lot on that side of Old Newport Boulevard suffers from the some disadvantages of a sloping grade. It is not a hardship if your development gets too fewer units because the lot is not big enough. This is quite clearly a four -lot project built on three lots. . Mr. Owen Minney, 1611 Emma Road, Assault, Colorado property owner on 19 INDIX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 INDEX Newport Boulevard noted his objections to the proposed project: Additional parking on the street • higher building than agreed to in the Specific Plan Hospital Road intersection would also be impacted by increased units with less parking. • Lot line split is okay but the building should be built on the north face and the lot should graded. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Minney stated that he owns the boat yard and that it is for sale. He noted that the side where he does his varnishing work on the boats is where the higher wall of the proposed project is. He stated that the applicants property should be graded and lowered. Concluding, he noted that the proposed square footage if done properly, could be parked and would not create a problem. Robert Kraft, architect for the project, 2650 Point Del Mar commented: . • Area increase, tandem parking, setback and off street parking are permitted by Code. • Referencing exhibits on wall depicted land falls and drainage directions. • Height density and size of the building were dictated by the owner's request to build the largest and most efficient office he could. • • Impractical to sink building into site. Chairperson Selich asked about the concrete V ditch drainage. Mr. Kraft answered that it is on CalTrans property and they were not receptive to our using their drainage ditch. Commissioner Tucker asked about the looks of the building. Mr. Kraft answered: • Elevation that faces Newport Boulevard - glass window wall • Elevation that faces Old Newport Boulevard - glass and stucco combination • Color selections are gray and silver. • Glass sections are approximately 4 1/2 feet square. Commissioner Fuller asked about a depiction of the difference between the envelope and what is allowed. Ms. Temple answered that the exhibits on the wall where it is colored yellow show where the height limits are being exceeded. Stacey Weiss. 3233 Broad Street spoke in objection to the proposed project noting: • Should have a meeting with all property owners to discuss impacts. Parking problem with overflow. • Proposed building is oversized and will be overused. • • Problems with noise. 1011 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 • Developer needs to address hardship reasons for a variance. • Specific Area Plan is not being upheld with this project. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Fuller noted the four items that are to be acted upon: Use Permit - for the additional floor area, does not have a problem with that as it is below the .75 FAR; Lot Line Adjustment - do not have a problem with as it is commendable to clean that area up with good looking projects; I am troubled by the tandem parking. I am convinced that tandem parking is really just one parking space and is problematic. I would not support this project If all of these issues were dependent on each other, simply because of the tandem parking. A medical use is very intense, with people coming in and out. I understand the condition where the employees could park in those tandem spots in the rear, but I am not optimistic about it. This project should have all parking on site, and I am not in favor of parking credits. I am not convinced that we could not relocate the building somewhere else on the lot and conform to the intent of the Specific Plan. As it stands, I am not in favor of this project. • Commissioner Kranzley agreed with Commissioner Fuller's assessment, especially the tandem parking. I was on the Planning Commission when the Specific Area Plan was approved. I am encouraged that we are seeing some development in that area, but I am not encouraged by the fact that we are starting to circumvent the rules. We have an opportunity to create a lovely area in Newport Beach, but creating parking issues is not a way to start. I am not in favor of any tandem parking or off street parking credits. • Commissioner Tucker expressed his concerns about the height variance being justified. Some of the scale of the building being carved back might be acceptable rather than running it back to the edge of the property line. The four requirements for granting a variance are not being met. Commissioner Ashley noted that this project could be designed in an alternative way and therefore the building height in the Specific Area Plan would not have to be exceeded. Granting a variance for this property would constitute a special privilege, and I am not in favor of that. The use of 14 tandem parking stalls could create an inefficient parking design of the property. I am not in favor of this project as submitted. Commissioner Gifford noted that she was not in favor of tandem parking. I have not seen a detailed statement on the four hardships associated with this lot which a variance is designed to address. I would like to compare that with any minimum kinds of variances that would be needed to address those kinds of problems. 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 Commissioner Fuller, referencing the comparison sheet prepared by staff on the two addresses, noted that the one on 415 Old Newport has set the tone for development in that area. Someone conformed to all the requirements and went in and built a good project. Chairperson Selich agreed with all previous comments and noted that tandem parking does not work unless it is valet parked. Public comment was re- opened in order to give the applicant an opportunity to ask for a continuance or whether he wants the Commission to take action based on the comments he has heard. Mr. Robert Kraft stated that he would accept a continuance in order to re- design the project and noted that the some group of people owns the two properties. Ms. Temple recommended the continuance to the first meeting in January and if the applicant decides to go another course, we can deny the application without prejudice. Motion was made to continue this item to the first meeting in January to allow the applicant time to reassess his project. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Warrington Residence (Ralph and Freda Warrington, Applicants) 2830 Bayview Drive • Variance No. 1231 • Modification No. 5006 Request to approve a variance for the construction of a new single family residence which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to permit the the following encroachments: • 5 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback on Heliotrope with an open covered porch and support posts 3 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback with a bay window that is 15 feet 4 inches in width where the Code limits bay • windows to a 2 foot encroachment and 8 feet in width 22 INDEX Item No. 5 Variance No. 1231 Modification No. 5006 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 INDEX • 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback with the structure • 16 feet into the required 20 foot reverse frontage rear setback at the corner of Bayview Drive and the adjacent residential property 7 feet into the required 20 foot reverse frontage side setback at the corner of Bayview Drive and the adjacent residential property Commissioner Fuller recused himself from deliberation on this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. Associate Planner Genia Garcia presented a Districting Map and chart that Is applicable to the area of the subject property. She noted that staff has conducted further analysis and had come up with an alternative interpretation to the Zoning Code. The Zoning code defines the front of a lot on a corner lot as "..the shortest lot line abutting a street.° In this case, a 20 -foot front setback is called out on the Districting Map. It may be possible, in this interpretation, that the shortest lot line is abutting Bayview Drive and that the Heliotrope Avenue set back line may not apply in this case. In the chart provided, If these setbacks were applied, the 20 -foot Bayview Drive as the front and the 4-ft Heliotrope Avenue on the side and the 10 foot setback at the north, the property would have similar buildable area as the adjacent • property that fronts on Bayview Drive. The buildable area would be based on the width of Bayview, which is 59 ft versus the width of Heliotrope, which is 110 ft. The chart would allow for a buildable area of 4,080 square feet and a total of 6,120 square feet of gross square footage could be built on the lot, which is a floor area to land area ratio of .94. The standard lot in the sub- division is roughly .99 and the proposed Variance is .85. With this interpretation, it is possible that a Variance would not be required on this property although a modification for an encroachment into the setback on Bayview Drive and a modification to the rear setback adjacent to the property on Heliotrope would be required. Chairperson Selich reiterated that staff is asking the Planning Commission to make an interpretation as to which we feel would be the prevalent regulation here, either the annotation on the Districting Map that indicates there is a 20-ft front setback on Heliotrope, or the other provision of the Zoning Code which says that the shortest width or shortest dimension of the lot is the front yard, therefore the 20-ft setback should be measured off Bayview Drive. Staff concurred. Ms. Temple noted that determinations of the Planning Commission are not officially noticed public hearings but are open to public comment as all deliberations are. Chairperson Selich stated that the Planning Commission will take public comment on the whole project and then during the deliberations, break it into two parts to deal with the interpretation of the Zoning Code. Based on that 23 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 outcome, then deal with the project. Public comment opened. Brion Jeanette, architect of the project stated that the front yard definition was an issue due to what was called out on the Districting Map. Referencing exhibits, he explained the overlay that depicts the proposed house compared to the existing building. Looking at the buildable area issue and the analysis showing the amount of building that is possible on the first floor (43 %) in relationship to the land area and how much is devoted to setbacks (57 %). A typical lot in Corona del Mar is 63% land and 37% setback. Commissioner Ashley asked if Heliotrope is being used as the front yard in the design? He was answered that yes; it is being used as the front entrance to the house. The existing building comes out the same as the proposed measurement (4 feet to the loggia). Commissioner Tucker stated that the manner in which the buildable area is determined, is independent of how the lot is laid out. I do not see the need to re- design anything, what it comes down to is to decide interpretably whether we prefer the language or diagram. When you actually put down the written • word, that tends to be more of what you mean as opposed to a map, where there is a lot of little numbers. I can see where there Is a conflict, I would tend to go with the written word rather than a diagram. I would prefer to see this not handled as a variance as I would have a hard time agreeing with anything over the reasonable setback buildable area times 1.5 which would end up eliminating 188 square feet. A variance is not necessary and we ought to refer it back to staff in a modification process. Public comment was closed. Chairman Seiich noted his agreement with Commissioner Tucker's comments. In dealing with these unusual lots, and using this reasonable setbacks I would have a hard time supporting the additional square footage. The setback belongs on Bayview for calculation purposes. I would be in favor of making Bayview the front yard setback thereby eliminating the need for a variance, however, we can take action on the modifications tonight as it is not necessary to send it back to the modification committee. Motion was made to Interpret the front yard setback on Bayview Drive, the language prevailing over the annotations on the Districting Map. Ayes: Ashley, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley • Noes: None 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 Absent: None Abstain: None Recused: Fuller Motion was made to approve Modification Number 5006. Ayes: Ashley, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Recused: Fuller Ms. Temple stated that staff will revise the findings and conditions in the minutes to reflect this action. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Modification No. 5006 (Revised) • Findings: The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program since a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the "Single Family Residential" land use designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualify Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 3. Based on information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that the definition of the front of the lot, as stated in Section 20.030.030 of the Zoning Code under Lot or Property Line. Front, is the determining factor in establishing the required setbacks for the subject property, rather than the required yard designation on Zoning Districting Map. 4. The approval of a variance is not necessary for the proposed project because there B adequate space within the buildable area of the site based on the Planning Commission interpretation of establishing Bayview Drive as the front of the lot, in which to accommodate the • proposed structure. 25 IIzI*3 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 5. The granting of a modification to allow encroachments into setbacks will not be detrimental to persons, property or Improvements in the neighborhood and the modifications as approved are consistent with the legislative Intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: • The 6 foot encroachment into the rear yard setback (north) will provide a 4 foot setback from the rear property line, which is similar to the required 4 foot side yard setback on the adjacent lot to the north and on similar sized lots in the neighborhood which provides adequate light and air between properties. Additionally, there is 15 feet from property line to the structure on the adjacent lot. • The 16 foot encroachment Into the rear reverse frontage setbacks is justified because the proposed setback in this area provides the required 20 feet from Heliotrope Avenue, which is the same for the dwellings located along this side of the street. • The 12 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot front yard setback on Bayview Drive is an open porch and the dwelling is set back 7 feet further, which will provide an open feeling at the • street side. • The encroachment into the 20 foot front yard setback is reasonable because the dwelling is setback 22 feet from Heliotrope to preserve the 20 foot setback along both sides of Heliotrope Avenue. • The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the property and enhance the overall neighborhood. • The project has been designed with setbacks that, in some cases, exceed the requirement for the District which provides additional open area on the lot and building massing relief. Conditions: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The gross square footage shall not exceed 5,543 square feet. 3. All vehicular access to the property shall be from Heliotrope Avenue unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 4. Two parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. • 5. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any 26 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 building permits. 6. The proposed driveway on Heliotrope Avenue shall be designed to avoid conflict with any existing parkway trees. The General Services Department shall approve any required root pruning. The owner shall contact the General Services Department to evaluate any driveway conflict prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. Standard Requirements 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless speclfically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. All work within the public right -of -way and the public easement shall be constructed under an encroachment permit /encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. • 4. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 6. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. This modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the last meeting City Council approved the Corporate Plaza • amendment; there was a slight amendment to the Sports Memorabelia 27 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1999 Museum (an additional 200 square feet); and as of January, the City Council meetings will be on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich noted that a presentation by the City Manager on the 5 year revenue projections of the City will be held at the next meeting. The EDC is having a committee study the financial impacts of the Dunes which will be incorporated in their recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council. C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - The consultant has delivered to staff five chapters of the zoning document. There are some scheduling concerns with the EIR because the consultant had been asked to study three alternatives. They will have to be decided on as quickly as possible. The Planning Commission study committee is asked to stay after the meeting to help the decision process. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Ashley noted his concern with the parking standards for medical office building or any special purpose office structure is 4 stalls per thousand. He asked for a study on standards and requirements. Ms. Temple noted that similar concerns had been expressed by Commission Kronzley. It Is simply a matter of priority and lack of staff. If the Commission would like, we could look at the medical office if you wish. Commissioner Kranzley stated that there are so many issues out there that are relatively newer than the zoning code that need to be addressed. If you wish to do the medical office, then go ahead, but I do think there should be a committee on this issue. f.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker noted that there Is only one meeting during December, and asked to be excused from the meeting. Commissioner Gifford also asked to be excused. 1h! ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 28 INDEX Adjournment