HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Draft Minutes of 03-14-13NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 03/14/2013
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES
Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard
Thursday, March 14, 2013
REGULAR HEARING
3:30 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Zoning Administrator
Jason Van Patten, Planning Technician
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
B. MINUTES of February 28, 2013
Action: Approved
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 121 341" Street Condominium Conversion No. CC2012 -004 and Parcel Map No.
NP2012 -009 (PA2012 -155)
121 34th Street CD 1
Jason Van Patten, Planning Technician, provided a brief description of the project stating that the application
was for a condo conversion and parcel map. He stated that the applicant was requesting to convert an
existing duplex to condominiums. He further added that the existing duplex was remodeled to condo
standards in 2011 with separate utilities, and that the building provided the code required two -car parking per
unit. He also mentioned that the applicant was not requesting any exceptions to the Subdivision Code
standards. Finally, he noted that the applicant was required to undergo a special inspection with the Building
Division, which was satisfied by the applicant.
Applicant Christopher Hall acknowledged that he had reviewed the draft resolution and the required
conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing
One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke, and inquired about the one safety violation referenced in the
staff report.
Mr. Van Patten clarified that the safety violation dealt with a staircase handrail that exceeded a maximum
height of 38 inches. He indicated that the applicant had corrected the issue and received approval from the
Building Division.
Seeing that no one else from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed
The Zoning Administrator clarified some confusion raised by the public surrounding conditions of approval
related to construction. She indicated that in this case, with the project already constructed, the application
was for the creation of separate ownership units and that no physical changes were being done to the
property. The Zoning Administrator approved the resolution as amended for Condo Conversion No. CC2012-
004, and Parcel Map No. NP2012 -009.
Action: Approved
Page 1 of 3
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 03/14/2013
ITEM NO.2 Johnny's Real New York Pizza Minor Use Permit No. UP2013 -002 (PA2013 -013)
1320 Bison Avenue CD 4
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description. He explained that the proposed Minor
Use Permit (MUP) is to allow beer and wine service at a restaurant allowed by an existing use permit located
in the Bluffs Shopping Center. He also noted that tenant improvement permits have been issued pursuant to
that existing use permit. He indicated that the tenant space has historically been occupied by restaurants and
that the proposed MUP was consistent with the "blanket" restaurant Use Permit approved for the Bluffs
Shopping Center. He explained that staffs recommended hours of operation were 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
daily, in order to allow the applicant and potential future operators flexibility. He further noted that the Police
Department had no objections to the request and that staff was recommending approval of the MUP.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski asked the applicant if they had any comments about the project.
Applicant representative Michael Cho requested that Condition of Approval No. 14 regarding bar counter
seating be deleted.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski opened the public hearing.
One member of the public, Jim Mosher, resident, questioned whether a condition prohibiting signage visible
from the exterior of the restaurant advertising alcoholic beverages should be included or if it's covered in the
sign code. Additionally, he questioned Condition No. 24 and its requirement for a Special Event Permit if beer
and wine was being sold and indicated that it seemed to contradict with what the MUP would allow.
Seeing that no others from the public wished to comment the public hearing was closed.
Senior Planner Ramirez, explained the floor plan and layout of the seating counters, seats and restaurant
equipment.
Ms. Wisneski and staff had a brief discussion about signage and Condition No. 24 as they relate to beer and
wine advertising and Special Event Permit requirements.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski took action and approved the proposed project. Included in the approval was
the deletion of Condition No. 14 because she determined that the service counter was small and not a bar
counter designed primarily for the service of alcohol. Also, the reference to beer and wine in Condition No.
24 was deleted.
Action: Approved as amended
ITEM NO.3 Westcliff Court Tea Room Minor Use Permit No. UP2013 -001 (PA2013 -004)
1703 Westcliff Drive CD 3
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description. He explained that the proposed
Minor Use Permit is to allow a tea room (eating and drinking establishment) that is within 500 feet of a
residential district. It was noted that the project site was developed over three parcels and a total of 165
parking spaces were shared between the buildings that occupied those parcels. He added that no late hours
or alcohol sales were proposed as part of the request.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski asked the applicant if they had any comments about the project
Applicant Deborah Standley stated she had nothing further to add to the staffs presentation.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski opened the public hearing.
Page 2 of 3
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 03/14/2013
Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski took action and approved the proposed project as submitted.
Action: Approved
ITEM NO.4 Orange Coast Winery Minor Use Permit No. UP2013 -003 (PA2013 -016)
3734 East Coast Highway CD 6
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description. He explained that the proposed
Minor Use Permit (MUP) is to allow Alcohol Sales (Off -Sale) for a retail store specializing in homegrown
wines. He added that a small, 170- square -foot accessory onsite tasting area was included in the request,
noted that the existing mixed -use development was nonconforming due to parking and use, and clarified that
the use was not considered an intensification as the parking requirements were unchanged.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski asked the applicant if they had any comments about the project.
Applicant Doug Wiens stated he had nothing further to add to staffs presentation.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski opened the public hearing.
One member of the public, Jim Mosher, resident, expressed concern for staff's interpretation of Zoning Code
Chapter 20.38 with respect to using parking requirements to gauge intensity for changing a use on a
nonconforming property. Additionally, he questioned Condition No. 31 and its requirement for a Special Event
Permit if beer and wine was being sold and indicated that it seemed to contradict what the MUP would allow.
Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment further the public hearing was closed.
Ms Wisneski and staff noted a change to Condition No. 31 as it relates to Special Event Permit requirements.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski took action and approved the proposed project. Included in the approval was
the deletion of beer and wine referenced in Condition No. 31.
Action: Approved as amended
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The hearing was adjourned at 3:54 p.m.
The agenda for the Regular Hearing was posted on March 8, 2013, at 10:45 a.m. on the City Hall
Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building and on the
City's website on March 8, 2013, at 10:50 a.m.
Brenda Wisneski, AICP, Zoning Administrator
Page 3 of 3
Items B, 1, 2, and 3: Additional Materials
Comments on March 28, 2013 Zoning Administrator Agenda
Submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosherCcDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548-
6229)
Item B. Minutes of March 14, 2013
I noticed one extremely minor grammatical error on page 2, in the last line of the public hearing
paragraph: "... it seemed to contradict with what the MUP would allow."
1. 718 Poinsettia Avenue Parcel Map (PA2013 -008)
In the,,draft Resolution of Approval:
• Si a Fact in Support of Finding F -1 establishes the land is not subject to the Williamson Act,
any-) ther facts (such as F -2) appear unnecessary. Similar reasoning suggests fact G -2 is also
unnece ary, as is the latter part of fact K -1.
• Regarding 'nding I, the reference to California Government Code section 65584 is to the
Housing Elem t of the General Plan, including its affordability goals. It is not entirely clear that
consistency with a present zoning, as recited in the supporting fact I -1, is sufficient to
demonstrate that th change in use could not be in conflict with the Housing Element,
particularly with regar o the affordability of the newly created units.
• The very similar agenda m 3 includes a required Finding L ( "That public improvements will be
required of the Applicant pe a Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. "). I am unable to
find that as a required finding i ection 19.12.070.A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, so
it is unclear to me why that finding . required to approve Agenda Item 3, but if it is needed
there, should it be included in this re lution.
• Why does Condition 3 mention "Each u ' will require separate utilities for the fire sprinklers "?
Do the units not need separate utilities in g eral, not just for the sprinklers, per Conditions 16 &
17?
• Condition 13, requiring replacement of a street tr , may require review and approval by the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission under ity Council Policy G -1, or other review
authorities. It is not clear if this matter is entirely withi he authority of the Zoning Administrator
to order. Compare to Condition 17 in Agenda Item 3, wh a authorization by the Municipal
Operations Director is implied.
• In Condition 19, do the units need to be separately identified?
• Is the reference to "duplex" in Condition 26 correct? Fact in Supp of Finding A -1 identifies the
existing property as a single family residence, not a duplex.
• In Condition 28, I don't believe Newport Beach currently has an employ officially called
"Planning Director." Was this intended to read "Director of Community De Iopment "?
• Regarding the Parcel Map, I am probably not understanding it, but if the solid ' es represent the
two condo units, they appear to have a substantially smaller footprint than the ex ting single
family residence. I have trouble reconciling this with Fact in Support of Finding A -1, hich
reports that the square footage of development is increasing from 1,355 to 3,347, and so
where the required parking will be provided.