The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/23/1986Present Motion All Ayes Motion es COMMISSIONERS x Ix pc I xlxlxlx REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7 :30 p.m. DATE: January 23, 1986 of Newport Beach All Commissioners Present. * • ,t EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney x a STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary • * x Minutes of January 9, 1986: Motion was made for approval of the January 9, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 3184, Tiffany's Astrological Club, and Item No. 7, Use Permit No. 3185, regarding proposed construction of an office building on Avon Street, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3184 and Use Permit No. 3185 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES INDEX of Request, for Continuance 7 s C O n °y x m Z C m m Z W z 9 Z Z Z M z N O 3 C 0 O O M M O m a r Z a z az'� m x Ix pc I xlxlxlx REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7 :30 p.m. DATE: January 23, 1986 of Newport Beach All Commissioners Present. * • ,t EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney x a STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary • * x Minutes of January 9, 1986: Motion was made for approval of the January 9, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 3184, Tiffany's Astrological Club, and Item No. 7, Use Permit No. 3185, regarding proposed construction of an office building on Avon Street, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3184 and Use Permit No. 3185 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES INDEX of Request, for Continuance COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 x x Co Ey ,� av m r a F_ Z 0 o i o 0 M _ = r r City of Newport Beach M p ROLL CALL Resubdivision No. 736 (Extension) (Discussion) Request an extension of time to establish a single parcel of land and eliminate interior lot lines where one lot and a portion of two other lots presently exist so as to allow the expansion of an existing office building. LOCATION: Lot 4 and portions of Lots 5 and 6, Tract No. 443, located at 504 North Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Evergreen II, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • ENGINEER: Madole and Associates, Santa Ana In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that the subject six month extension will expire on July 27, 1986, and that the applicant would need to apply for a new application if the tentative parcel map is not recorded on or before that date. Motion x Motion was made to approve a 6 month extension of All Ayes Resubdivision No. 736. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of the existing Bubbles Balboa Club with on sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment. The proposal includes a request to amend Condition No. 10 of the existing use permit so as to allow the addition of amplified music in conjunction with the subject restaurant. is LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 189 -17, 18 ( Resubdivision No. 713), located at 109 -111 Palm Street, on the southwes- terly corner of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard, in Central Balboa. -2- MINUTES Item No.2 UP2045A Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . January 23, 1986 a x C o x y - C v ,a. m Z c m y m z M v z 0 v r o 0 m m j City of Newport Beach z ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Bubbles Balboa Club, Ltd., Balboa OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Kurlander asked why the usual condition regarding the possible revocation of a use permit was omitted from the subject application. James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that the application was recommended for approval subject to all of the applicable conditions of the original amended use permit, and Chairman Person further advised that the revocation condition is a condition that the Planning Commission has imposed on applications since the subject application was approved. I I I ( ( I Chairman Person referred to letters submitted to the Planning Commission signed by Mr. Ed Lynch, 600 East Ocean Front, suggesting his support of some type of • I j I ( I I amplification, and Ms. Mary Jane Sanborn, 600 East I Ocean Front, Balboa, in support of the application. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the "revocation condition" could be legally added on at the present time? Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the previously approved Finding No. 5 addresses the subject issue, and that the condition would be related to that finding; and she further replied that the condition does concern the applicant's neighbors and noise from the proposed amplified music. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, No. 1 Civic Plaza, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King referred to Condition No. 10 of the original amended use permit, approved by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1982, stating that no amplified music shall be performed. Mr. King commented that the groups performing at the restaurant facility require some amplification for voice or to support musical instruments. He further stated that the groups expected to perform at Bubbles Balboa Club would be small groups that would generate moderate sound levels within the lounge. Mr. King commented that the • previously stated letters received by the Planning Commission are signed by neighbors who previously opposed the Bubbles Balboa Club application, but that the neighbors are currently finding that the proposed amplified music is not detrimental to the neighborhood. -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 23, 1986 xx 11111111 o � a v = C residence is 1 1/2 blocks from the Bubbles Balboa Club 2 C m a m = z w c s o o i = a = A T City of Newport Beach Mr. King stated that the Bubbles Balboa Club has added a new air conditioning system, and sound attenuated the structure. He pointed out that the location of the entertainment within the structure is in an area that has been buffered by the building - the kitchen, the offices, the rear portion of the building, and he noted that the block wall that adjoins the adjacent patio also serves as a buffer to the adjacent residents living across and behind the subject establishment. Mr. King referred to letters signed by residents in the area addressed to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission stating that the Bubbles Balboa Club doors were open on opening night and that the residents had called the Police Department about the amplified music. Mr. King opined that when the police arrived on opening night the officers discovered that the doors were closed, and that no police report was written; and he further commented that the Police Department has not received any adverse calls since I I I I ( opening night. Mr. King commented that the Police Department advised the applicant that The Bubbles Balboa Club has added to the safety in the area and has not been detrimental. Mr. Robert Foster, 404 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating his objections to any revision of the existing use permit on the basis of the residents' concern regarding the noise. Mr. Foster disagreed with staff's recommendations on the basis that the recommendation poses no objections based on the sound engineer's certification that sound levels outside of the establishment will not be increased because of the noise within the establishment. Mr. Foster cited that there has been a complaint regarding the noise by one of the residents. He referred to the conditionally approved use permits dated January 11, 1982, by the City Council and May 6, 1982, by the Planning Commission, stating that there shall be no amplified music within the establishment, and he opined that there was amplified music the evening that the Bubbles Balboa Club opened. Mr. Foster expressed his concerns regarding the applicant adhering to the conditions of approval of the subject use permit. SM In response to questions posed by Chairman Person and Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Foster stated that his 11111111 residence is 1 1/2 blocks from the Bubbles Balboa Club in the C -1 District. He advised that he has not heard SM COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 xx C o the Planning Commission. Mr. Dever stated that his f a v = Z C my s m = residence is approximately 15 feet from the rear of C 2 m p r o o I Z a z City of Newport Beach a= m noise from the establishment and he opined that there has not been amplified music at the Bubbles Balboa Club since opening night. Mr. Foster cited that his concern regarding the amplified music has been based on one of the neighbors hearing the amplified music on opening night. Mr. Foster explained how the noise was coming through the walls and windows. Mr. Foster commented that he is within the sphere -of- influence of the Bubbles Balboa Club, and that he has not heard amplified music from the restaurant in his home or by walking near the restaurant during normal operation. Chairman Person advised that there has been amplified music since opening night. Mr. Doug Cavanaugh, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission regarding the conditions of approval in the subject use permit. Mr. Cavanaugh referred to his letter dated December 11, 1985, to Planning Director James Hewicker wherein the applicant explained why the Bubbles Balboa Club originally had • amplified music, and the misunderstanding that the applicant had concerning same. He cited that after he was aware of what the condition meant, the applicant stopped the amplification. Mr. Cavanaugh referred to a letter signed by Mr. Art Dever, replying that there was no mention of any noise coming from the building in the letter, but that Mr. Dever had sighted amplified -type musical instruments, and there was amplification on the premises. Mr. Cavanaugh further explained that he and a police officer walked the surrounding area of the Bubbles Balboa Club on opening night and the police officer could not hear any noise coming from the establishment. Mr. Cavanaugh cited that the Bubbles Balboa Club had amplified music for one month, beginning opening night on November 18, 1985. He further commented that the structure was built to contain amplified music. MINUTES INDEX Mr. Art Dever, 510 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dever stated that his residence is approximately 15 feet from the rear of the Bubbles Balboa Club. Mr. Dever commented that his letters of complaint are not about the noise but the violation of the conditions of approval contained in the use permit and that the applicant be required to honor all of the conditions in the use permit. He opined that the noise complaint to the Police Department is a matter of' record. Mr. Dever's complaints consisted of the doors being open on opening night, that the doors are inadequately constructed, -5- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 M c o A 9 1 Ic - y y m z 0 v s o 0 i? p a Z T m j City of Newport Beach Z that the amplified music was turned up, that there is a violation of Condition No. 6 that requires that mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets and the alley, and that there is a violation of Condition No. 7 that requires that a washout area for trash containers be provided to allow direct drainage into the sewer system. Mr. Karl Mueller, 121 Apolena Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the amplification. Mr. Mueller pointed out that the patrons of the Bubbles Balboa Club cannot hear the entertainment without the amplified music. Mr. Mueller asked if there would be a change of ownership, is another application for a use permit required? Chairman Person clarified the question by stating that if the applicant sold the restaurant after the Planning Commission imposed conditions on the type of amplification presented, and the new owner changed the characteristics of the restaurant, would the Planning Commission have the ability to review the use permit? Mr. Hewicker replied that if the operational characteristics of the restaurant changed, the new owner would be required to apply for a new use permit for approval, or the Planning Commission may add a condition stating that if a problem occurs as a result of the restaurant facility, the Planning Commission may recall the application regardless of who owns the establishment. Mr. Douglas Weinstein, Tustin, appeared before the Planning Commission, in support of amplified music. Mr. Weinstein stated that he waited in line outside the Bubbles Balboa Club for twenty minutes before he entered the restaurant and he could not hear the music, and after he entered the restaurant he still could not hear the music. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Weinstein replied that he waited outside on East Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Johnny Smith, on behalf of the Ink Spots, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith stated that the Bubbles Balboa Club will be a home base for the Ink Spots. He said that their music is not loud, and he commenced to play an Ink Spots recording. Mr. Smith • advised that the background instruments, consisting of guitar, bass, drums, and piano are needed. He cited that the guitar and bass are needed for foundation, the drums for timing, piano for basic music, and the saxaphone does not need amplification. -6- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 111 January 23, 1986 X c o x m a c m> m z c a m o S O o m= m z T m I City of Newport Beach In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Smith stated that megaphones are inadequate, and that there is a possibility that the Ink Spots may desire mobile microphones. Mr. Smith informed Commissioner Koppelman that only the bass and voices need to be amplified. Mr. John Gimbernat, 313 Fernando Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the amplified music stating that he cannot hear the music coming from the Bubbles Balboa Club when he is in the vicinity on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Jerry King reappeared before the Planning Commission. Chairman Person asked if the applicant would be willing to accept an additional condition stating that the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of the use permit, if the operation of the restaurant facility is determined to • be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community? Mr. King replied that the applicant would be willing to accept the recommendations based on the previous explanation of Ms. Korade and the Planning Department so that the clarification reinforces or pertains to Condition No. 10 of the original amended use permit which states that "the proposed live entertainment be confined to the interior portions of the restaurant facility^. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. King replied that the applicant is presently obtaining bids from subcontractors to build custom enclosures for the trash area, that the applicant has presently received two bids, and is requesting two or three additional bids. Mr. King stated that performing groups that will be entertaining at the Bubbles Balboa Club will be of similar style and tempo as the Ink Spots. He advised that the applicant will support an added condition that would state that the use permit could be recalled if a new owner would change the operational characteristics to a "rock and roll" restaurant to enable the residents an opportunity to address the issue. • In rebuttal to Mr. Dever and Mr. Foster, Mr. King replied that opening night was a special event, and that the applicant should have requested a Special Events Permit because of added lights, vintage -7- COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 MINUTES PH x x _ C O O m z c m a m z z r m City of Newport Beach c z m o i O O p ROLL CALL INDEX automobiles, and the doormen dressed in uniform. Mr. King cited that the doormen monitored the doors to assist the guests during the entire evening. Mr. King cited that the newly installed air conditioning system accommodates the entire restaurant at full occupancy load as permitted by law, and that because of the air conditioning system there will be no reason for the doors to remain open. Mr. King summarized his presentation by stating that the applicant is attempting to address each reasonable complaint generated by the residents in the area, and that the conditions of approval in the subject use permit will be in full compliance in the near future. Chairman Person emphasized that the applicant .must be in 1008 compliance of all of the conditions of approval in the use permit. Commissioner Goff asked if the applicant would accept • the condition as previously stated by Chairman Person? Mr. King replied that the applicant will accept, as the staff has recommended, Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, "that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City ". Commissioner Goff advised that the condition he was referring to states that the Planning Commission can review and add conditions to the use permit if it is determined that the operation of the restaurant facility is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Mr. King replied that if that recommendation becomes a condition, the Planning Commission may call the application back for review. Mr. Hewicker commented that Mr. King had previously stated that the condition would be acceptable only if the condition applied to Condition No. 10 regarding noise from live entertainment, and that Commissioner Goff was referring to a condition regarding any problem that may come up as a result of the operation of the restaurant. Chairman Person cited that the Planning Commission has the right to impose the condition whether or not the applicant agrees to the condition. Mr. King stated that his previous comment was made specifically in -8- CC)MMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 x x c o � Associates, Newport Center, appeared before the x _ 2 m z c m y m z Planning Commission. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. C 2 W O r o o N = a = , z T City of Newport Beach m response to a question that he had asked Ms. Korade, and the applicant's understanding was that if you asked for an amendment to a specific condition of a use permit, that you could not go beyond that. He opined that Ms. Korade answered that the finding in the approval of the original amended use permit in 1982 essentially said that there is a relationship between the amended condition and that specific finding which the Planning Commission desires to reword as a condition; therefore, the applicant finds no difficulty in approving the condition. Commissioner Goff cited that he would take the answer to his previously stated question as a "yes ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff regarding the time frame for additional trash enclosure bids, Mr. King replied that the applicant is hastening the bid process, and after awarding the bid the applicant will need additional time to custom manufacture the trash enclosure before installation. Mr. Mestre replied that the sound transmission loss test, or noise reduction, involves generating a noise inside the structure at a high level, simultaneously making a measurement at the nearest sensitive receptor location, such as, at a residence across the alley, putting the microphone at a level about 15 feet above the ground corresponding to the window location of the second story which is closest to the restaurant. He said that the measurement is made by measuring the sound level of each one of 32 discreet frequency bands to tell if there are any characteristics of the building which are transparent to certain frequencies of sound in a low frequency range in an area that would be potential problems of an "acoustic hole" in the MINUTES INDEX Mr. Vince Mestre, consulting engineer, Mestre Greve Associates, Newport Center, appeared before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Mestre to explain the County Noise Ordinance and how the Ordinance functions; and could Mr. Mestre enter the Bubbles Balboa Club to conduct tests under various levels of operation and compare the amount of noise that is generated under various decibel levels of operation, and after the tests have been taken, give the Planning Commission a correlation between the amount of noise that is generated in the building and the noise that is generated at the property line, at the point where the noise would affect the neighbors? Mr. Mestre replied that the sound transmission loss test, or noise reduction, involves generating a noise inside the structure at a high level, simultaneously making a measurement at the nearest sensitive receptor location, such as, at a residence across the alley, putting the microphone at a level about 15 feet above the ground corresponding to the window location of the second story which is closest to the restaurant. He said that the measurement is made by measuring the sound level of each one of 32 discreet frequency bands to tell if there are any characteristics of the building which are transparent to certain frequencies of sound in a low frequency range in an area that would be potential problems of an "acoustic hole" in the MINUTES INDEX building. He said that the measurement can determine what sound levels are permissible inside the structure to present noise levels at the nearest location which do not exceed either ambience noise levels or recommended community standards. He said that the ambience noise levels on the Peninsula tend to be high, primarily from traffic on Balboa Boulevard, and that the activity tends to last into the evening and night, not dropping off until after midnight. Mr. Mestre advised that the test can be performed within a week to ten days. Mr. Mestre advised that the County of Orange Noise Ordinance is an effective means of controlling noise from many different sources, including restaurants and bars with amplified music. He said that the Ordinance is a specific statement in decibels as to how loud a person can make a noise relative to any adjacent land use. Mr. Mestre explained that the subject Noise Ordinance sets in many technical statistical terms how much noise can be made, specifically for citation enforcement action. He explained that the noise levels in the Orange County Noise Ordinance are for different times of the day, but that the night time noise limit -that applies after 10:00 p.m. is "that no person can produce a noise that exceeds 50 dBA for more than 30 minutes in any one hour between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ". He stated that if the sound consists of music or speech, that noise limit is reduced by 5 dBAs, and in this case the restaurant cannot be allowed to produce a noise level that exceeds 45 dBA at the residential property line for more than 30 minutes in any one hour, and if the noise is for a period shorter than 30 minutes, the restaurant would be allowed to provide a slightly higher noise level of 50 dBA for speech or music. He cited that speech or music is treated differently than other noise sources because the ear is particularly sensitive to music and speech, and that the ear is most sensitive to certain frequencies and we speak in those frequencies. Mr. Mestre opined that the Planning Commission has the option to condition any type of project with noise limits, suggesting a very well accepted and established Orange County Noise Ordinance which can be adopted throughout the City or could be required with the approval of a use permit for specific projects, which has some very sensitive and technical language that is enforceable and useable. -10- MINUTES January 23, 1986 7 R - C O = D 9 z c m y m m z c= y z 0 3 0 0 m M M 2 j City of Newport Beach building. He said that the measurement can determine what sound levels are permissible inside the structure to present noise levels at the nearest location which do not exceed either ambience noise levels or recommended community standards. He said that the ambience noise levels on the Peninsula tend to be high, primarily from traffic on Balboa Boulevard, and that the activity tends to last into the evening and night, not dropping off until after midnight. Mr. Mestre advised that the test can be performed within a week to ten days. Mr. Mestre advised that the County of Orange Noise Ordinance is an effective means of controlling noise from many different sources, including restaurants and bars with amplified music. He said that the Ordinance is a specific statement in decibels as to how loud a person can make a noise relative to any adjacent land use. Mr. Mestre explained that the subject Noise Ordinance sets in many technical statistical terms how much noise can be made, specifically for citation enforcement action. He explained that the noise levels in the Orange County Noise Ordinance are for different times of the day, but that the night time noise limit -that applies after 10:00 p.m. is "that no person can produce a noise that exceeds 50 dBA for more than 30 minutes in any one hour between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ". He stated that if the sound consists of music or speech, that noise limit is reduced by 5 dBAs, and in this case the restaurant cannot be allowed to produce a noise level that exceeds 45 dBA at the residential property line for more than 30 minutes in any one hour, and if the noise is for a period shorter than 30 minutes, the restaurant would be allowed to provide a slightly higher noise level of 50 dBA for speech or music. He cited that speech or music is treated differently than other noise sources because the ear is particularly sensitive to music and speech, and that the ear is most sensitive to certain frequencies and we speak in those frequencies. Mr. Mestre opined that the Planning Commission has the option to condition any type of project with noise limits, suggesting a very well accepted and established Orange County Noise Ordinance which can be adopted throughout the City or could be required with the approval of a use permit for specific projects, which has some very sensitive and technical language that is enforceable and useable. -10- MINUTES "MISSIONERS January 23, 1986 z C c o � � y a v x n r v z Z C m y m Z c z a p r o o M T City of Newport Beach z Commissioner Turner asked if in an analysis, could Mr. Mestre give a comparison of the noise level within the restaurant with and without amplified music, and determine what the noise level would be with the type of music presently being discussed? Mr. Mestre replied that this would be an excellent way of establishing an inside control of how loud the music can be before the music is to the point of disturbing the neighbors. He opined that the music is not likely to be played at a level that the sound would travel through the structure, over the second story and into the alley, since there is no direct line of sight between the residents and the location of the band. Commissioner Koppelman asked what kind of mechanical device is used by the County of Orange to enforce the Noise Ordinance? Mr. Mestre replied that the noise monitor utilized for Noise Ordinance enforcement is a computerized precision sound level meter. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Mestre replied that the low frequency sound, such as a bass instrument, is more difficult to attenuate than a high frequency sound. Mr. Mestre described how low frequency sound carries by a direct line of sight between the source and the receiver, in which case the noise levels have to be kept low, but an obstructed line of sight produces opportunities to reduce the noise levels considerably. In reference to containing the noise of an amplified bass inside the Bubbles Balboa Club, Mr. Mestre stated that the restaurant is an enclosed structure with no openings that are directly in line with the residents, and that immediately outside the patio area is a two -story structure between the residents and the nearest wall that sound could not pass through easily. He said that the Ink Spots' amplified voices could be easily controlled. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, regarding what Mr. Mestre could recommend for the interior of the restaurant so that voices would not have to strain to make more noise, Mr. Mestre replied that it is difficult to produce concert hall acoustics in a structure that is not designed accordingly. The public hearing was closed at this time. ID Commissioner Turner opined that the subject use permit has encountered two problems: the enforcement of the original conditions of approval contained in the -11- MINUTES INDEX WAISSIONERS January 23, 1986 X a o O n v _ a m 2 c m a m z C z m O g o a W z m> r m i City of Newport Beach approved use permit; and to condition the amplified noise that is acceptable, whereby he recommended that Mr. Mestre be given the opportunity to conduct a noise study and prepare a report that will provide information that is needed to- impose a condition to the proposed request to a specific decibel level, and have the noise study presented to the Planning Commission. Motion x Commissioner Turner made a motion to continue Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986, so as to allow the applicant time to conduct the aforementioned noise studies. Commissioner Eichenhofer opined that the residents concern is noise and that amplified music had been previously denied by the City Council and the Planning Commission. She opined that amplified music means different things to different people: rock and roll music compared to the Philharmonic Orchestra, each perform with amplified music. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she does not want to ignore the people that live in the area, with the hope that the residents can have peace and quiet, but that the Bubbles Balboa Club should be able to have some amplification. Substitute Commissioner Eichenhofer made a substitute motion to approve Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) subject to the Motion findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", adding Condition No. 3 stating "that the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit,or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation, which is the subject to this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community ". Commissioner Eichenhofer clarified the condition by stating that this condition does not pertain to the aforementioned Condition No. 10, but the total problem that may pertain to the Bubbles Balboa Club. Commissioner Koppelman commented that upon her visit to the Bubbles Balboa Club she could not hear the music inside or outside of the restaurant. She opined that the issue is a "good neighbor" policy: that the music can be amplified so that the restaurant patrons can enjoy the music and where the neighbors are not infringed upon with noise. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the substitute motion, -12- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 23, 1986 xx c o � x v _ C v m 2 C m y m Z c z 0 O r O O M a Z X= T m City of Newport Beach and asked the maker of the motion permission to amend the motion as follows: add Condition No. 4 indicating that the amplification be only for voices and bass; add Condition No. 5 specifically prohibiting electrical guitars (excluding bass),- electric pianos, and synthesizers; and add Condition No. 6 that the application will return to the Planning Commission in six months for review. Commissioner Eichenhofer agreed to accept the added conditions of approval. Commissioner Turner opined that there could be a future problem as to a specific instrument being excluded from play. He reasoned that the purpose of his motion would be to establish a decibel level that says how much noise can be generated before there is a violation. Chairman Person stated that the Planning Commission has previously required a condition that states that "the noise level eminating from the interior of the restaurant shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line" which is an objective that can be done to test • the extent of the noise level that is emanating from the building. Chairman Person asked Commissioner Eichenhofer if the aforementioned condition regarding 55 dBA be an acceptable condition. Commissioner Turner stated that the groups currently performing at the Bubbles Balboa Club may not generate enough noise to reach 55 dBA at the property line. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she would accept the added condition. Mr. Hewicker commented that Mr. Mestre advised that 55 dBA at the property line is in excess of typical noise levels that he would recommend, and that the consultant was talking about 45 dBA across the alley at the windows of the residences. Mr. Hewicker advised that the Planning Department does not have the equipment necessary to monitor the noise. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she did not add the noise condition because the City does not have the expensive equipment, and that Mr. Mestre recommended 45 dBA at the nearest residence. Chairman Person stated that he will support the substitute motion. He explained that the problem is not so much noise as the violation of the approved use permit. In addressing Mr. and Mrs. Foster, Chairman Person stated that there is a balance between the commercial zone and a residential zone. He said that prior to the applicant returning to the Planning Commission, there was not a condition on the approved -13- MMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 ,x c o p 9 1 - S z c m � 9 m s m z C a w o S 0 0 Z D Z m a, m i City of Newport Beach S 2 _ use permit stating that the Planning Commission could call up, add or modify or change conditions of approval, by merely informing the applicant to return in the future, and that the Planning Commission will now have that power and authority. Chairman Person emphasized his concern regarding the applicant meeting the conditions of approval of the approved use permit, and suggested that the applicant fulfill all of the required conditions within thirty days. Substitute Commissioner Goff made a substitute substitute motion Substitute to approve Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) subject to the Motion x findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", adding Condition No. 3 stating "that the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community ". Commissioner Goff opined that the recommended Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 specifically permit amplified voices and bass, and.prohibits various other instruments, and that the Planning Commission should not try to control the noise of the interior of the restaurant. He referred to Condition No. 6 regarding the application be reviewed by the Planning Commission in six months, by stating that recommended Condition No. 3 allows the Planning Commission to return the use permit for review at any time necessary. Commissioner Koppelman explained that the purpose of Condition No. 6 is so that the Planning Commission can be assured that all of the required conditions of approval such as screening the trash have been met. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the Planning Commission could instruct staff to report back to the Planning Commission in thirty or forty -five days as to the status of the conditions that have not been met, and if the applicant is in violation at that time, then the Planning Commission could call the use permit back for review. Chairman Person stated that he would support the substitute substitute motion. Commissioner Eichenhofer advised that she would withdraw her motion and support the substitute substitute motion. Chairman Person recommended that staff come back to the Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 1986, at which time the Commission will expect all conditions of approval of the approved use permit be met. -14- MINUTES INDEX "/V\ISSIONERS January 23, 1986 C x fir C o n f y 9 9 = V Z C m r 9 m m Z a= 0 M = Z o r m = o o m ( City of Newport Beach 3. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury or is detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. r * x The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. • • x Use Permit No. 3091 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) I ( I I I I I Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the construction of a four unit residential condominium project on property located in the R -3 District. The proposed amendment includes a revised site plan, floor plans and elevations for the previ- ously approved project. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow: one greenhouse window to encroach 18 inches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback and a second green- house window to encroach 12 inches into a required 4 foot side yard setback; and to allow a 6 foot separa- tion between structures whereas the Zoning Code re- quires a minimum 8 foot separation between structures. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 84 -1 (Resubdivision No. 403), located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard, between "E" and "F" Streets, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Dr. Richard L. Zahn, Fullerton OWNER: Robert Warmington, Costa Mesa I ( ( I I I The public hearing was reopened in connection with this item, and Jack Hester, architect, 220 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. -16- MINUTES Ttam Nn _4 UP3091A Approved COMMISSIONERS 1x 10 0 z c m y m z AD a m a n a January 23, 1986 MINUTES City of Newport Beach - ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes x Z x x x x substitute motion was voted on to approve Use Permit Noes x No. 2045 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", including added Condition No. 3 stating "that the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the addition of amplified music in conjunc- tion with the existing live entertainment in the restaurant will not be detrimental to any surrounding residential land uses, so long as the music is confined to the interior of the building. 2. The approval of Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working the the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the proposed addition of amplified music will be done in a manner so as to insure that the ambient noise level outside of the restaurant will not increase. CONDITIONS: 1. That all previous applicable Conditions of Appro- val for Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended), as approved by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1982, shall be fulfilled except that the applicant shall be permitted to use amplified music in conjunction with the live entertainment within the restaurant. 2. The applicant shall obtain the services of a professional engineer practicing in acoustics who shall provide evidence of existing ambient outside noise levels and proposed interior noise levels and shall certify to the Planning Department that the existing outside ambient noise levels will not be increased as a result of the proposed amplified music. -15- M MISSIONERS x x C o > v x C 2 C M m a m m Z a 9 M `Z L a r N °; o m 0 x r T °(City of Z 2 D= y= z w m January 23, 1986 Beach Hester explained that the revised plan is a two story development with additional open space, and that the entire project is much less intense than the previous plan denied by the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 22, 1984, Mr. - Hester stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in the revised Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I I I I Ix) I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3091 All Ayes (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Revised Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. • 2. The project complies with all applicable stan- dards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of ap- proval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan, and the Adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium develop- ment. 6. That the proposed greenhouse window encroachments are minor in nature and will not obstruct light, air or views from adjoining residential prop- erties. 7. That adequate light and air is being maintained between the buildings as required by the Uniform Building Code. -17- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES T January 23, 1986 x X C o z r 9 m z c m y m z I C 2 to p; O O M z m T m City of Newport Beach z D ROUCALLHI I III INDEX 8. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 6 foot separation between structures and the proposed greenhouse window encroachments will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or inju- rious to property and improvements in the neigh- borhood or the general welfare of the City. 9. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 0 11111111 CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conform- ance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one tandem parking space and one accessible parking space shall be provided for each unit. 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 773 be fulfilled, including the provision that the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council. 4. Should any resources be uncovered during construc- tion, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K -6 and K -7. 5. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 6. That a grading plan if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. fie= COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 MINUTES of Newport Beach 7. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 8. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 9. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 10. Chimney Heights shall conform with Section 20.02.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That the on -site driveway shall maintain a minimum clear width of 18 feet. 0 12. That the proposed 27 foot wide driveway approach shall be approved by the City Council. 13. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.08.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x x C o � x A. Use Permit No. 3178 (Continued Public Hearing) _ v > v m z c m y m z a s x z r G residential - commercial structure on property located in O z O S O O M sO 0 m a Z M z a m height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation of Newport Beach 7. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 8. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 9. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 10. Chimney Heights shall conform with Section 20.02.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That the on -site driveway shall maintain a minimum clear width of 18 feet. 0 12. That the proposed 27 foot wide driveway approach shall be approved by the City Council. 13. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.08.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -19- Item No.4 UP3178 R821 Approved A. Use Permit No. 3178 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a combined residential - commercial structure on property located in the C -1 District, which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow tandem and compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking; a nine foot, nine inch high wall along the easterly side property line that encroaches nine feet into the required ten foot rear yard setback; and to allow a portion of the required parking spaces and a portion of the second floor of the proposed building to encroach into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. AND -19- Item No.4 UP3178 R821 Approved ROLL January 23, 1986 t Beach B. Resubdivision No. 821 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots and eliminate an interior lot line so as to create a single building site on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4, Section One, Block 9, Balboa Island, located at 504 South Bay Front, on the northerly side of South Bay Front between Agate Avenue and Opal Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Mitchell K. Brown, Urban Assist, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNERS: Robert and Rita Teller, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mitchell K. Brown, Urban Assist, Inc., 3151 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Brown presented background information of the property site. Mr. Brown explained that the proposed concept is for retail uses consisting of two shops on the first level, the second level will partially consist of office space, and the remaining half of the second level and third level will consist of a townhouse. Mr. Brown commented that the applicant intends to replace the existing dock structure. He stated that the 9 foot 9 inch wall along the easterly side property line referred to in the staff report has been removed. Mr. Brown stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that no parking will be available for the boat slips; therefore, the applicants should be aware that the use of the boat slips will be restricted only for the upland users and that the boat slips cannot be rented or leased. Mr. Brown concurred with the condition. The public hearing was closed at this time. on IxI Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3178 and Ayes Resubdivision No. 821, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -20- MINUTES X F n f a v = v > v m a s a i `Z N i X °; 0 ° °j m o m a" City of 2 Z 9 Z y= T M January 23, 1986 t Beach B. Resubdivision No. 821 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots and eliminate an interior lot line so as to create a single building site on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4, Section One, Block 9, Balboa Island, located at 504 South Bay Front, on the northerly side of South Bay Front between Agate Avenue and Opal Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Mitchell K. Brown, Urban Assist, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNERS: Robert and Rita Teller, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mitchell K. Brown, Urban Assist, Inc., 3151 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Brown presented background information of the property site. Mr. Brown explained that the proposed concept is for retail uses consisting of two shops on the first level, the second level will partially consist of office space, and the remaining half of the second level and third level will consist of a townhouse. Mr. Brown commented that the applicant intends to replace the existing dock structure. He stated that the 9 foot 9 inch wall along the easterly side property line referred to in the staff report has been removed. Mr. Brown stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that no parking will be available for the boat slips; therefore, the applicants should be aware that the use of the boat slips will be restricted only for the upland users and that the boat slips cannot be rented or leased. Mr. Brown concurred with the condition. The public hearing was closed at this time. on IxI Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3178 and Ayes Resubdivision No. 821, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -20- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 x x C o � z c m r a m z� z A= r T City of Newport Beach Ic z N o S O O x ROLL CALL Use Permit No. 3178 FINDINGS: 1. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 2. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit inasmuch as there is a greater amount of open space on the site adjacent to the public walkway than is required. 3. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 4. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing devel- opments or public spaces. 5. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 6. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 7. With the exception of the minor building and parking space encroachments into the required 10 foot rear yard setback and the parapet wall that exceeds the basic height limit, the proposed development meets or exceeds all of the development standards of the C -R District. S. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to allow the use of compact and tandem parking spaces as well as to allow portions of the second floor of the proposed building and a portion of the on -site parking spaces to encroach -21- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS x c o � a x F C m c m a m Z C Z 0 o S 0 0 Z p z a= r m p January 23, 1986 City of Newport Beach LL into the required 10 foot rear yard setback 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 of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 10. The approval of Use Permit No. 3178 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety,peace, morals,comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations except as may be noted below. . 2. That Parking Spaces No. 1 and 2 shall be designat- ed for residential use only and shall be clearly posted as such. 3. That a minimum of 10 on -site parking spaces shall be provided at all times for the retail and office uses of the property. 4. That any enclosure of the on -site parking area shall be open in nature, such as wrought iron or wire mesh. 5. That the property owner shall record a covenant, the form and contents of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, stating that gates or doors installed to enclose the commercial parking spaces shall remain open at all times when the commercial leasable space is open for business. This cove- nant shall also assure that said parking spaces shall be used exclusively for off - street parking for the commercial uses conducted on the site. -22- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 6. That a maximum of 6 tandem and 3 compact parking spaces shall be permitted on -site. 7. That the applicant shall obtain a Harbor Permit for all development or reconstruction bayward of the site. 8. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 821 shall be fulfilled. 9. That as long as the property is developed with a structure which exceeds the basic height limit,the applicant shall record a covenant, of which the form and content is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest inperpetuity,to not exceed a limitation of 1.34 times the buildable area on the subject property. This is in consideration of approval of the use permit to exceed the height limit. 0 1111110. I ( That all signs shall be in conformance with the I provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 11. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; 0 11111111 1 -23- January 23, 1986 x x C o i f a y a c v m y m m z c a 9 m o C 0 0 z City of Newport Beach m> 9 a r MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 6. That a maximum of 6 tandem and 3 compact parking spaces shall be permitted on -site. 7. That the applicant shall obtain a Harbor Permit for all development or reconstruction bayward of the site. 8. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 821 shall be fulfilled. 9. That as long as the property is developed with a structure which exceeds the basic height limit,the applicant shall record a covenant, of which the form and content is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest inperpetuity,to not exceed a limitation of 1.34 times the buildable area on the subject property. This is in consideration of approval of the use permit to exceed the height limit. 0 1111110. I ( That all signs shall be in conformance with the I provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 11. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; 0 11111111 1 -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES x x January 23, 1986 c o � x y m Z c m y m z z a 2 a z T m City f Newport Beach c= 0 G i X c o i f y 9 v m z c m y m z W 9 M z r M Z C a 0 r o o! I z p Z m a r m' \\J M z January 23, 1986 of Newport Beach 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a build- ing permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That the commercial and residential portions of • the building be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public works Department. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. That the deteriorated portions of sidewalk be reconstructed along the South Bay Front frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That the proposed structural encroachments shall be permitted within the 10 foot rear yard setback provided they maintain a minimum 8 foot vertical clearance above the alley. 8. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval,unless an extension is granted by the . Planning Commission. x x -25- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 23, 1986 x x c o � x a y _ , v m = c m a m = C H 0 r 0 0 W a m. m a r T j City of Newport Beach = S = 9 = m m Use Permit No. 3181 (Continued Public Hearing) litem N0.5 Request to establish a restaurant with on -sale alcoho- UP 3181 lic beverages on property located in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to allow all of Denied the required parking spaces for the subject restaurant to be provided within the off -site Lido Marina Village Parking Structure. LOCATION: Lot 7 and a portion of Lot 8, Tract No. 1235, located at 3422 Via Lido, on the northerly side of Via Lido, between Central Avenue and Via Oporto, adjacent to Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Tadashi Shimada, Torrance OWNER: S. R. Willford, Newport Beach • William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, recommended that if the Planning Commission approves the application that Exhibit "B ", Finding No. 3, be amended to read "that the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, utilities, parking lot illumination and a portion of required parking, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties "; and Condition No. 2 of Exhibit "B" be amended to read "that 3 parking spaces shall be provided in the Lido Village Parking Structure for the restaurant employees ". The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Tadashi Shimada, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Shimada stated that, if necessary, he would be able to transport 30 gallons of trash each day from the subject restaurant to his restaurant in Manhattan Beach. He cited that in accordance to a contract agreement, his restaurant would have 24 parking spaces available within the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure. Mr. Sandy Willford, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Willford confirmed that Mr. Shimada • will haul 30 gallons of trash from the proposed restaurant each day to his restaurant in Manhattan Beach unless he is able to make arrangements with Lido Marina Village to utilize their trash area in the parking structure. -26- COMMISSIONERS xx c o � x - C v > v m z c m> m z c= o f 0 0 a m o m a r .xi z x z A z m p January 23, 1986 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Mr. Hewicker advised that he was on the Planning Department staff at the time the parking structure was Mr. Willford stated that the most important issue built, and he recalled that the Lido shops are entitled regarding the application is the parking rights of the to 24 permanent parking spaces to be distributed at Lido shops. He distributed documents signed by Mary their discretion, and that the 200 parking spaces are Naegeli, Secretary of the Lido Marina Village Parking not actually 200 specific parking spaces, but are for Structure when the structure was built, and the 200 validations, and that the validations can be contract signed by Mr. Donald Koll. Mr. Willford cited validated by either 200 different people using one that the approval of the application would be based on parking space throughout the day or dividing the 200 whether or not the Lido shops have parking rights parking spaces, and he opined that no one has the within the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure. He exclusive right to the subject validated spaces. In outlined the document that was originally signed by the summary, he cited that if the Lido shops had the • Lido shops for two different types of parking: 24 free exclusive rights for 200 parking spaces, then there would not be enough parking spaces for the Lido shops parking spaces on a permanent basis divided among the and for the Lido Marina Village in the parking Lido shops, of which Mr. Willford owns approximately structure. one -third of the land, and he said that Lido Marina village gave him 8 parking spaces to be distributed to his tenants; and the Lido shops also have the right to validation parking for a minimum of 200 parking spaces located throughout the parking structure. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Planning Commission is not a judicial body and if Mr. • Willford has a dispute regarding the parking rights of the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure Contract then the matter should be taken to Court by Mr. Willford. Ms. Korade explained that the Planning Commission has previously approved Use Permits for projects in Lido Marina Village that have required the subject 200 parking spaces within the parking structure, and that if the Planning Commission granted approval of the subject application at Mr. willford's request, then the Planning Commission would be contradicting or "defacto revoking" the previously issued use permits. -27- MINUTES INDEX Mr. Hewicker advised that he was on the Planning Department staff at the time the parking structure was built, and he recalled that the Lido shops are entitled to 24 permanent parking spaces to be distributed at their discretion, and that the 200 parking spaces are not actually 200 specific parking spaces, but are for 200 validations, and that the validations can be validated by either 200 different people using one parking space throughout the day or dividing the 200 parking spaces, and he opined that no one has the exclusive right to the subject validated spaces. In summary, he cited that if the Lido shops had the • exclusive rights for 200 parking spaces, then there would not be enough parking spaces for the Lido shops and for the Lido Marina Village in the parking structure. -27- MINUTES INDEX ..y..9 ..".' January 23, 1986 x _ area, the applicant would need 6 parking spaces for the a C O o 1,500 square feet of the retail space that is to be I c C 9 m a m m z C2 Z a 0 oroai = Z = r m City Y of Newport P Beach parking spaces for 7,500 square feet of floor area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner regarding the 24 parking spaces allocated to the Lido shops, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Lido shops were built at a time when the City did not have a formal parking requirement for commercial uses in the C -1 District, but the Lido shops utilized parking spaces on a lot where the parking structure is now located. Mr. Hewicker opined that he does not know how the negotiators arrived at the 24 parking spaces, but he stated that the 24 parking spaces are not adequate to serve the existing Lido shops today based on the standard of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and that there is more than 6,000 square feet of retail space in the Lido shop area. Mr. Willford advised that he has 7,500 square feet of floor area in his own building. I I I I I I In response to Commissioner Turner, Mr. Willford replied that according to staff's calculations, based on one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor CEO MINUTES area, the applicant would need 6 parking spaces for the 1,500 square feet of the retail space that is to be converted to a restaurant, and that according to staff the total tenants in his building are allowed only 8 parking spaces for 7,500 square feet of floor area. Mr. Willford referred to the aforementioned Contract with Mr. Koll, stating that the Lido shops gave up their parking lot to Mr. Koll to build the parking structure for two types of parking: free parking to the management and that the Lido shops have the right to a minimum of 200 parking spaces throughout the structure. Mr. Willford stated that the Planning Commission must make the decision whether or not the applicant has the parking rights for the subject 200 parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker cited that Mr. Willford's testimony states that there are 24 free parking spaces for the Lido shops, plus 200 parking spaces, totalling 224 parking spaces for the Lido shops. He indicated that there are 373 total parking spaces within the parking structure for all users, leaving 149 parking spaces for the commercial development in Lido Marina Village. Mr. Hewicker opined that the City has approved uses in Lido Marina Village during the past 13 years based on the assumption that they were able to utilize many more than the 149 parking spaces. In response to Chairman Person, Mr. Hewicker commented • that staff and Mr. Willford differ in what is meant by "validation ". CEO MINUTES v\rni�NUwtKc ) MINUTES ' January 23, 1986 c o o - z c m r a m a m Z M m z m z m m City of Newport Beach c z H o r O O Commissioner Turner referred to a letter signed by Thomas S. Levyn, Attorney at Law, dated January 8, 1986, to Mr. Willford regarding the parking agreement for the applicant. Mr. Willford informed the Planning Commission his discussion with the attorney regarding the parking rights of the applicant. Chairman Person informed Mr. Willford that the City cannot enforce the contractural problem that Mr. Willford has concerning the parking spaces between the Lido shops and Lido Marina Village. Mr. Willford referred to staff's finding that the applicant does not have enough parking spaces, and he opined that the City disagrees that the subject contract is a valid contract between the Lido shops and the Koll Corporation. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the previous parking lot owned by a non- profit organization formed by the Lido shops, Mr. Willford advised that the Lido shops leased the property from the Griffith Company and the property was specifically for a parking lot for the Lido shops, and not for Lido Marina Village. Mr. Willford referred to staff's statement regarding the 24 free parking spaces, stating that the parking spaces have been distributed throughout his tenants, and that he cannot ask those tenants to return the previously assigned parking spaces; however, he would distribute the proportionate number of free parking spaces to the applicant, and he asked that Condition No. 2 in Exhibit "B" stating "that 3 parking spaces shall be provided in the Lido Village Parking structure for employees" be removed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Willford replied that the Bank of America has a segregated parking agreement with Lido Marina Village; and that the parking structure management allows tenants to buy parking validations and cards. Mr. Ed Warmington, owner of property at 3400 Via Lido and 3414 Via Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Warmington stated that he sat on the original negotiations of the parking structure. He confirmed that the Lido shops currently have 24 parking • I I I J I ( ( I spaces, and that originally 86 parking spaces were I given the Lido shops by the Koll Corporation, but that the Lido shops gave up the 86 parking spaces for the -29- AAMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 x� c o � F p _ m z c m y m z C Z 4 p; O O z a m> T City of Newport Beach m 9 Z _ 24 free parking spaces and the 200 validated parking spaces. He opined that if the Lido shops did not have the additional parking spaces that the Lido shops would have illegal occupancy in the commercial zone. Mr. Warmington cited that the agreement was requested by the City Council, and that the Roll Corporation and the Lido shops met with the City Attorney until an agreement was made. Mr. Douglas Dreyer, owner of property at 3416 Via Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dreyer confirmed the testimony previously given by Mr. Willford and Mr. Warmington as he was involved in the original negotiations regarding the parking rights of the Lido shops. Mr. Dreyer stated his opposition to the subject restaurant application because of potential trash, and wine and beer problems. I I I Mr. Mohammed Faez, owner of Mr. Salza in Lido Marina Village, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. . Faez opposed the subject application because of the lack of parking spaces in the area, and that the proposed site would not be a suitable area for a restaurant because of the lack of a trash area in the alley. Mr. Shimado reappeared before the Planning Commission pointing out his ,previous experience in operating a restaurant. Chairman Person explained to Mr. Shimada that the Planning Commission is only making a decision if the restaurant will be an appropriate use for the subject site and has appropriate parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Shimada replied that his restaurant would specialize in vegetables and seafood. Mr. Warmington reappeared before the Planning Commission, and commented that the parking structure useage is one -half full unless there is a special event in the Lido Marina Village vicinity. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Hewicker how many parking spaces have been allocated either by use permit or by contract arrangements to other property owners in the area? Mr. Hewicker replied that throughout public hearings regarding uses in the Lido Marina Village and the parking structure, the City has produced many reports, and the City could prepare a summary of the uses and parking requirements, and how many spaces were -30- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 s s c O - a ° O _ v m 2 C m y" Z I z a z 9 a City of Newport Beach c z w C; 0 0 allocated, how many spaces may have been waived by the Planning Commission, and put together the information regarding the construction of the parking structure. Mr. Hewicker stated that a use permit was required for the parking structure because the structure was over height. He opined that tonight's testimony for the 200 parking spaces is totally different than staff has heard in the 13 years' since the parking structure has been in existence. Chairman Person made a motion to continue Use Permit No. 3181 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 1986, to enable the staff to generate further information, and to enable the owner of Lido Marina Village to provide the Planning Commission with the mix of uses on the waterfront. Mr. Willford replied that the continuation of the application will cost the present tenants approximately $4,000.00 a month. Mr. Languedoc, current tenant of the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Languedoc stated that the continuations of the use permit have become a financial hardship to him, and that the Planning Commission should not make their decision of the application based on parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker replied to the necessity of parking requirements for the restaurant. The public hearing was closed at this time. n I IxI I I I I Chairman Person withdrew his original motion, and he made a motion to deny Use Permit No. 3181 subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A ". -31- MINUTES INDEX Chairman Person commented that aside from the businesses. operating under use permits, he would like to know what the mix of business is that is in Lido Marina Village at the present time, and the businesses that are perhaps operating under the normal standard of 1 parking space per 250 square feet of floor area that meets the Ordinance, such as boat charters. He cited that the Planning Commission required the last remaining parking spaces to the last restaurant that was approved in Lido Marina Village, and now that the • Lido shops have come to the Planning Commission to say that they have non - exclusive rights for 200 parking spaces in the parking structure means that perhaps we have been misinformed by the previous applicants. Chairman Person made a motion to continue Use Permit No. 3181 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 1986, to enable the staff to generate further information, and to enable the owner of Lido Marina Village to provide the Planning Commission with the mix of uses on the waterfront. Mr. Willford replied that the continuation of the application will cost the present tenants approximately $4,000.00 a month. Mr. Languedoc, current tenant of the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Languedoc stated that the continuations of the use permit have become a financial hardship to him, and that the Planning Commission should not make their decision of the application based on parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker replied to the necessity of parking requirements for the restaurant. The public hearing was closed at this time. n I IxI I I I I Chairman Person withdrew his original motion, and he made a motion to deny Use Permit No. 3181 subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A ". -31- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 xx c O FW � C m s m m = C Z 0 O; 9 a a z o o r m City of Newport Beach a ,LL Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion because she has a concern regarding the disposal of trash. All Ayes I I I I I I I I Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS 1. That adequate offstreet parking is not available for the proposed restaurant use to satisfy the requirements of Section 20.30.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That adequate provision has not been made for the disposal of waste materials. 3. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or the building applied for will, 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 of such proposed use and will be detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. Use Permit No. 3184 (Continued Public Hearinq) Request to permit the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment in the former Tiffany's Private Club facility in the C -1 -H District. The proposal also includes a request to purchase in -lieu parking permits from the City on an annual basis, so as to allow a portion of the restau- rant parking to be provided in the City Hall Employee parking lot., The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to use a valet parking service in conjunction with the parking proposal. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 60 -43 (Resubdivision No. 433), located at 3388 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido, between Via Oporto and Via Malaga, adjacent to Lido Marina Village. -32- MINUTES INDEX Item No.6 Continued to 2-6-86 Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes • i � January 23, 1986 MINUTES of Newport Beach APPLICANT: Tiffany's Astrological Club, Newport Beach OWNER: Traweek Investmeent Fund #12, Ltd., Marina del Rey. Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3184 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3185 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of an office buil- ding in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District and contains a gross structural area in excess of .5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes a modifi- cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact and tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking, and a request to use a substandard aisle width with wider than normal parking spaces for a portion of the required parking; and the acceptance of an environmental document. As an option to the tandem parking spaces, the applicant is willing to purchase an equal amount of in -lieu parking spaces on an annual basis in the Mariner's Mile Municipal Parking Lot. LOCATION: Lot 45, Tract No. 1133, located at 2620 Avon Street, on the northerly side of Avon Street, between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: James Adams, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3185 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x -33- INDEX Item No.7 UP3185 Continued to 2 -6 -86 xx c o � x _ v a m a z c m a m z W A 2 r S M 2 z N o 3 0 O O 111 D 2 X 2 9 2 T 111 i � January 23, 1986 MINUTES of Newport Beach APPLICANT: Tiffany's Astrological Club, Newport Beach OWNER: Traweek Investmeent Fund #12, Ltd., Marina del Rey. Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3184 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3185 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of an office buil- ding in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District and contains a gross structural area in excess of .5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes a modifi- cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact and tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking, and a request to use a substandard aisle width with wider than normal parking spaces for a portion of the required parking; and the acceptance of an environmental document. As an option to the tandem parking spaces, the applicant is willing to purchase an equal amount of in -lieu parking spaces on an annual basis in the Mariner's Mile Municipal Parking Lot. LOCATION: Lot 45, Tract No. 1133, located at 2620 Avon Street, on the northerly side of Avon Street, between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: James Adams, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3185 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x -33- INDEX Item No.7 UP3185 Continued to 2 -6 -86 wkrvu0_NvivrK3 January 23, 1986 MINUTES X x C o � f y s v = v r v m z c m a m z C Z W a S 0 0 W m z A a� m City of Newport Beach INDEX Use Permit No. 3176 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to permit the installation of an off -site UP3176 directional sign on property located in the Unclas- sified District. Approved LOCATION: A portion of Lot 146, Block 51, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3501 Jamboree Road, on the southeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street, northerly of the North Ford Planned Community. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Gary R. Williams, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach I I I I I I I I The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion All Ayes Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3176, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed sign will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed sign will not have any signifi- cant environmental impact. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3176 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental . or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -34- CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and elevation. 2. That letters and /or images may be imposed on only one face of each panel. 3. That the sign shall identify only residential developments within the City of Newport Beach. 5. That the final location of the sign shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee. 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as • specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Use Permit No. 3177 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two unit residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -3 District. The proposal also includes a request for the City to vacate a portion of the northerly 10 feet of East Ocean Front and to measure the required 6 foot front yard setback on East Ocean Front from a new property line which is 5 feet northerly of the existing centerline of East Ocean Front. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of two parcels each of which are less than 50 feet in width and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and one parcel (Parcel No. 2) which is less than 80 feet in depth. B. Resubdivision No. 819 (Public Hearing) is Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into one parcel for residential condominium purposes (Parcel No. 1) and one parcel for single family residential purposes (Parcel No. 2). -35- MINUTES INDEX Item No.9 UP3177 R819 Approved January 23, 1986 C o z c m r a a m m z C= W m 0 o o C m a O T O M M City of Newport Beach Z A Z Z T m CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and elevation. 2. That letters and /or images may be imposed on only one face of each panel. 3. That the sign shall identify only residential developments within the City of Newport Beach. 5. That the final location of the sign shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee. 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as • specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Use Permit No. 3177 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two unit residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -3 District. The proposal also includes a request for the City to vacate a portion of the northerly 10 feet of East Ocean Front and to measure the required 6 foot front yard setback on East Ocean Front from a new property line which is 5 feet northerly of the existing centerline of East Ocean Front. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of two parcels each of which are less than 50 feet in width and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and one parcel (Parcel No. 2) which is less than 80 feet in depth. B. Resubdivision No. 819 (Public Hearing) is Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into one parcel for residential condominium purposes (Parcel No. 1) and one parcel for single family residential purposes (Parcel No. 2). -35- MINUTES INDEX Item No.9 UP3177 R819 Approved January 23, 1986 C F C O f y a v 9 m z c m a m a M a z m z' m City f Newport Beach ca m of O O) Y 1" a a I LOCATION: Lots 12, 13 and 26, Block 14, Balboa Tract, merged as a single building site by Document 12818 -996, located at 922 East Ocean Front and 925 -927 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northerly side of East Ocean Front and the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard, between "A" Street and "B" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Russell E. Fluter, Newport Beach OWNER: Goldie Joseph, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Duca- McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar Commissioner Winburn opined that 60 square feet would be removed from the front of the property, and William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, advised that the deck on the second floor is not included in the buildable area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Laycock advised that the properties discussed in the addendum are zoned R -3 and R -4, and that all of the properties abut alleys. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Laycock advised that 22 feet separate the structures, except for the walkways that connect said structures. -36- MINUTES James Hewicker, Planning Director, pointed out that the staff report indicates that Goldie Joseph is the owner of the subject property. Mr. Hewicker commented that the entire property was owned by Goldie Joseph, but that when a portion of the property was deeded to a new owner, there was not a subdivision to create two parcels of land as required by Code, and Mr. Hewicker recommended that this matter be corrected. Mr. Hewicker distributed documents as to the Floor Area Ratio of other residential uses that have been approved by the Planning Commission on the Balboa Peninsula over the past several years, and the calculation of the Floor Area Ratio on Parcel No. 1 once the front of the building is pulled back to conform to the setback suggested in the staff report. Commissioner Winburn opined that 60 square feet would be removed from the front of the property, and William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, advised that the deck on the second floor is not included in the buildable area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Laycock advised that the properties discussed in the addendum are zoned R -3 and R -4, and that all of the properties abut alleys. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Laycock advised that 22 feet separate the structures, except for the walkways that connect said structures. -36- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 A x C o ° E a v m Im y 9 2 r 9 C m D 1 = a - z r o x Z y ° ; ° ° i 111 m> City of Newport Beach z 9 2 T m The public hearing was opened in connection with t4s item, and Mr. Jack Hester, 220 Newport Center Dri} e, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hester stated that the applicant agrees with he findings and conditions with the exception of Condition No. 8 of the Resubdivision stating that the 20 f of easement area be paved with concrete. Mr. Heste 's objections were that the alley has never been pav )Rd, that the drainage would go to the neighboring proper�y, and that the alley has not been designed. Discuss on followed between Mr. Webb, Mr. Hester and Commissioner Turner regarding the alley, and Commissioner Turner suggested that the applicant could landscape the alley area and also make a cash contribution to the City for future pavement of the alley. Mr. Hester agreed that the applicant would contribute cash to the City to pave the alley in the future. Mr. Gene White, 920 East Ocean Front, westerly of he subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. White commented that dirt in the al ey of the subject site will run onto his paved alley, end that he objects to a setback other than the exist�ng setback that now exists. Mr. Webb referred to Condition No. 9 of Resubdivision, that states "that the area to be vac on East Ocean Front shall be between the exis sidewalk and the front property line.... ". Mr. explained that there are between 6 1/2 feet to 7 feet instead of 10 feet between the front property and the sidewalk in that area, and he opined that i appropriate to vacate out to the sidewalk but not the sidewalk area. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff had a concern that two dwelling units could be converted in the fut and that staff has recommended that a covenant placed on the property to notice new owners that t could be only two dwelling units on the property. c, be Mr. Russ Fluter, applicant, 510 - 30th Street, appea ed before the Planning Commission stating that simil r- type condominiums that he previously constructed on • other lots have not had any problems regarding sal s, or being converted into additional dwelling units. -37- MINUTES INDEX a 0 January 23, 1986 i a v = m a 2 c m a m = Z = m A z a T i City of Newport Beach Mr. Hester stated that the subject property would not obstruct any views from the adjacent property. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3177 and All Ayes Resubdivision No. 819 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including an amended Condition No. 8 of Resubdivision No. 819 stating that the applicant shall deposit a fee with the City for future alley improvements. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Webb advised that 9 more residential lots need to be altered before the alley can be completed between "A" Street and "B" Street. Mr. Webb further stated that there is currently an easement in that area. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3177 and • I I I I I Resubdivision No. 819, including amended Condition No. 8, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Use Permit No. 3177 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units on Parcel No. 1 have been designed as condominiums with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Land Use Element of the Local Coastal Program. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the proposed residential condominium development. 4. That the recommended front yard setback of 0 feet (measured from the existing property line) on East Ocean Front, is similar to other setbacks on lots westerly of the subject property. • 5. That the approval of a modification to the zoning Code so as to allow a zero foot setback on East Ocean Front will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, O MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 C x C 0 � f 9 9 = m 2 z c m y m z C= 0 O r O o i= a= z T m i City of Newport Beach z safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3177 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. That any development beyond the existing front property line on East Ocean Front will be .detrimental to adjacent residential properties. CONDITIONS: - 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That one tandem garage space and one accessible garage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all Conditions of Resubdivision No. 819 shall be fulfilled. 4. That the required front yard setback on East Ocean Front shall be 0 ft. measured from the existing property line. 5. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Resubdivision No. 819 FINDINGS: 1. Except for the requested exceptions, the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -39- MINUTES INDEX ROLL January 23, 1986 A F F r 9 m Z a Z Z Z T m. City of Newport Beach MM N 03001 Y p 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 4. That the proposed parcels are of comparable size and shape as other similarly zoned parcels in the vicinity of the subject property. 5. That the granting of the requested exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. . 6. That if the exceptions were denied, the petitioner would be deprived of a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the area. • � j� I I I I I CONDITIONS: I 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated concrete sidewalk along the East Ocean Front and East Balboa Boulevard frontages be reconstructed and that the street light on East Balboa Boulevard be relocated if it is not clear of the proposed driveways. The location of the pole shall be approved by the • Public Works Department. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. -40- MINUTES INDEX 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That a 20 foot easement for alley and public purposes be dedicated to-the City. The dedication shall be 15 feet wide across Lot 26, Block 14; Balboa Tract, and 5 feet wide across Lots 12 and 13, Block 14, Balboa Tract, or as otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. That the proposed structure for Parcel No. 1 be allowed to encroach over the proposed 20 foot alley with a minimum clear height of 14.5 feet above future alley grade. The proposed alley will have a finished grade of 8.00± feet at property line. 8. The applicant shall deposit a fee with the City, an amount to be approved by the Public Works Department, which is equal to the estimated cost of alley improvements. Said deposit is to fulfill the applicants obligation to pave the alley at the time the City determines it is necessary. 9. That the area to be vacated on East Ocean Front shall be between the existing sidewalk and the front property line and that the applicant retain a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor to determine the locations of the front property line and sidewalk and to prepare a legal description for the area to be vacated. This description is to be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That overhead easements be granted to the elec- trical and telephone utilities as necessary to provide service, as it currently exists and that any relocations of these utilities be provided at no cost to the adjacent property owners. 11. The applicant shall record a covenant, the form and contents of which are acceptable to the City Attorney, stating that Parcel No. 1 shall be limited to two dwelling units and Parcel No. 2 shall be limited to one dwelling unit. 12. That no surface improvements such as 3 ft. high walls, patios or landscaping shall be permitted • beyond the front property line on East Ocean Front unless the applicant obtains .approval of the requested street vacation. -41- MINUTES INDEX January 23, 1986 F n a v s y m 2 G m y m Z G 2 m a S 0 0 M n z m m I City of Newport Beach z, 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That a 20 foot easement for alley and public purposes be dedicated to-the City. The dedication shall be 15 feet wide across Lot 26, Block 14; Balboa Tract, and 5 feet wide across Lots 12 and 13, Block 14, Balboa Tract, or as otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. That the proposed structure for Parcel No. 1 be allowed to encroach over the proposed 20 foot alley with a minimum clear height of 14.5 feet above future alley grade. The proposed alley will have a finished grade of 8.00± feet at property line. 8. The applicant shall deposit a fee with the City, an amount to be approved by the Public Works Department, which is equal to the estimated cost of alley improvements. Said deposit is to fulfill the applicants obligation to pave the alley at the time the City determines it is necessary. 9. That the area to be vacated on East Ocean Front shall be between the existing sidewalk and the front property line and that the applicant retain a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor to determine the locations of the front property line and sidewalk and to prepare a legal description for the area to be vacated. This description is to be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That overhead easements be granted to the elec- trical and telephone utilities as necessary to provide service, as it currently exists and that any relocations of these utilities be provided at no cost to the adjacent property owners. 11. The applicant shall record a covenant, the form and contents of which are acceptable to the City Attorney, stating that Parcel No. 1 shall be limited to two dwelling units and Parcel No. 2 shall be limited to one dwelling unit. 12. That no surface improvements such as 3 ft. high walls, patios or landscaping shall be permitted • beyond the front property line on East Ocean Front unless the applicant obtains .approval of the requested street vacation. -41- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS January 23, 1986 x x C o s v m y a 9 i s m a m s C= 0 O C O o i== z T m I City of Newport Beach M= 13. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Vi l Use Permit No. 3186 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a medical office building in the A -P [0.8) District containing two levels of offices constructed over a surface parking area which exceeds the 32 foot basic height limit in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. The pro- posed also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 11018, located at 1455 Superior Avenue, on the northwesterly • side of Superior Avenue, bet- ween Placentia Avenue and Hospital Road, in the West Newport Triangle Area. ZONE: A -P [0.81 APPLICANT: Heltzer Enterprises, Los Angeles OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc. appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Neish referred to Condition No. 6 requesting that the private drive have a minimum width of 30 feet. Mr. Neish pointed out that 16 feet of the subject private drive are located on the site and 14 feet are located on adjacent property. Mr. Neish referred to Condition No. 19 regarding a covenant on the subject property, and he opined that the applicant has been advised by the City Attorney's office that the covenant would be removed at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is released on the project. • I I I I I I James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that in consideration of granting the use permit exceeding the height limit staff is suggesting that a covenant be -42- MINUTES Item No.10 Approved recorded that would limit development on the site to 0.64 times the buildable area. Mr. Hewicker cited that the only time the covenant would be removed is when the building would be torn down and a new building would be constructed on the property. ,Mr. Neish stated that the applicant has a concern, since there is no flexibility in the buildable area and that 0.64 times the buildable area is very specific. Discussion followed regarding the buildable area flexibility given previous projects approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Person recommended that Condition No. 19 be amended to 0.65 times the buildable area. January 23, 1986 C 0 Mr. Bob Wissmann, 704 North LaBrea, Manager of :E z a = C a 2. m appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wissmann �Z m > T o City of Newport Beach z a m stated so that the applicant would not exceed the recorded that would limit development on the site to 0.64 times the buildable area. Mr. Hewicker cited that the only time the covenant would be removed is when the building would be torn down and a new building would be constructed on the property. ,Mr. Neish stated that the applicant has a concern, since there is no flexibility in the buildable area and that 0.64 times the buildable area is very specific. Discussion followed regarding the buildable area flexibility given previous projects approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Person recommended that Condition No. 19 be amended to 0.65 times the buildable area. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the covenant could be recorded with a condition stating that the covenant be applicable as long as the use permit is in effect, and that the condition would tie the covenant to this building. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I x)xlxlxIxI I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3186, subject y to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", Noes including amended Condition No. 19 modifying to 0.65 times the buildable area and that the covenant shall only be applicable for the duration of this use permit. Commissioner Goff stated that he will not support the motion because the project is too intense for the area. . Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -43- MINUTES Mr. Bob Wissmann, 704 North LaBrea, Manager of Development Activities for Heltzer Enterprises, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wissmann advised that the proposed conditions as written are stated so that the applicant would not exceed the buildable area. In reference to the subject covenant, Mr. Wissmann advised that the applicant would agree that the covenant run with the property until construction is completed, but that the covenant would be a blemish on the title, and that the covenant would ultimately reduce the economic value of the property as market conditions would warrant. Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and the applicant regarding keeping the covenant on the property forever. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the covenant could be recorded with a condition stating that the covenant be applicable as long as the use permit is in effect, and that the condition would tie the covenant to this building. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I x)xlxlxIxI I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3186, subject y to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", Noes including amended Condition No. 19 modifying to 0.65 times the buildable area and that the covenant shall only be applicable for the duration of this use permit. Commissioner Goff stated that he will not support the motion because the project is too intense for the area. . Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -43- MINUTES CUM MISSK)N'ERS x 0 n 9 9 = C 9 r m (0 9 D = r L S o r 0 0 M m O m 2 D Z y z r m Of FINDINGS: January 23, 1986 Beach 1. That the increased building height will result in more public visual open, space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 2. That the increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 3. That the increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing devel- opments or public spaces. 4. That the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use • permit for the building height. 5. That the project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning require- ments for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except for the basic building height and compact parking spaces. 6. That use of the site for a medical office building is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 7. . The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- tutes 24 percent of the parking provided which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed development. • I I J I 9. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land 1 Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -44- MINUTES CO"SS�IOTNERS MINUTES January 23, 1986 I c Z w o 3 0 0 a z X= T m City of Newport Beach - a ROLL CALL 111 11 1 1 INDEX 10. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 11. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 12. The proposed modification for compact parking spaces will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or he detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the gneral welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legistative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 13. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3186 will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard use permit agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improve- ments, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improve- ments. 4. That the intersection of the private street be • designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight -45- "/V\ISSIONERS January 23, 1986 x x c o 0 6. That the private drive have a minimum width of 30 x feet unless otherwise approved by the Public Works C W O r O o W A z A z m i City of Newport Beach Department and that it be improved with curb, distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 5. That the drive apron at Superior Avenue be recon- structed to City Std. -166 -L and the fire hydrant on the southerly side of the drive be relocated to a position at least 5 feet from the top of drive- way "X ". That cracked or deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk along Superior Avenue be reconstructed. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That all public and private easements be shown on the building site plan. 9. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 10. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 11. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. • I I I I I I I 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas 1 shall be screened from Superior Avenue and Medical Lane and adjoining properties. -46- MINUTES INDEX 6. That the private drive have a minimum width of 30 feet unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and that it be improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk along its northerly side. • 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. That all public and private easements be shown on the building site plan. 9. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 10. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 11. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. • I I I I I I I 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas 1 shall be screened from Superior Avenue and Medical Lane and adjoining properties. -46- MINUTES INDEX MM1551VNtK5 January 23, 1986 MINUTES C z c o � x r v 9 m z c m > m z C m z z= T m I City of Newport Beach c z 0 o z 0 0 INDEX 13. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 14. That a minimum of one parking space per 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area shall be provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 15. That the project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 16. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 17. The layout of the parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 18. Compact parking spaces shall not exceed 24% of the parking spaces provided. 19. That as long as the property is developed with a structure which exceeds the basic height limit, the applicant shall record a covenant, on which the form and content is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest in perpetuity, to not exceed a limita- tion of 0.65 times the buildable area on the subject property. This is in consideration of approval of the use permit to exceed the height limit. The covenant shall be applicable only for the duration of the use permit. 20. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. -47- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 23, 1986 o � 9 7m� z s m = F Z 0 O S O O z M a= T m City of Newport Beach -- a achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the lines. ROLL CALL 22. That Use Permit No. 3186 shall expire if not INDEX DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business estab- lishments which rely on such service; b.). The City of Newport Beach will continued to oppose additional commercial area service ex- pansions at the John Wayne Airport; c.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to 'limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: I Additional Business Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Koppelman and Commissioner Winburn from the February 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION Excused CARRIED. I Absences Chairman Person asked the Planning Commissioners to inform him who would be attending the Speak Up Newport (SUN) dinner on February 7, 1986, at the Newport SUN, Marriott Hotel. He reminded the Commissioners that SUN Dinner will be honoring the Planning Commission that evening. • A D J O U R N M E N T: 10:55 p.m. Adjournment r x PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION I' '� 21. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to isproperty achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the lines. 22. That Use Permit No. 3186 shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.08.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ,t • x A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: I Additional Business Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Koppelman and Commissioner Winburn from the February 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION Excused CARRIED. I Absences Chairman Person asked the Planning Commissioners to inform him who would be attending the Speak Up Newport (SUN) dinner on February 7, 1986, at the Newport SUN, Marriott Hotel. He reminded the Commissioners that SUN Dinner will be honoring the Planning Commission that evening. • A D J O U R N M E N T: 10:55 p.m. Adjournment r x PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION I' '�