Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/1985ROLL IPresent Absent COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING x x PLACE: City Council Chambers c o = TIME: 7:30 P.M. : c m � m z DATE: May 23, 1985 2 a = A = � m City of Newport Beach C z w p; 0 0 a ,LL J x Ix x L I Commissioner Turner was absent. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney a � STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of May 9, 1985 Motion x Ayes x x x x x Motion was made for approval of the May 9, 1985, Absent x Planning Commission Minutes, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x Reauest for Continuances Planning Director James Hewicker recommended that Agenda Item No. 1, Use Permit No. 1417(Amended) be continued to June 20, 1985 and Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3147 be continued to June 6, 1985. Motion x A x x x x x x Motion was made to continue Item No. 1 to June 20, x 1985, and Item No. 4 to June 6, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. x -1- MINUTES INDEX E Use Permit No. 1417(Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted on =sale alcoholic beverages. and dancing entertainment in conjunction with an existing restau- rant in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment is to change the Park Bar and Grill Restaurant's hours of operation so as to permit the service of lunch and dinner between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2.00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 10:30 a.m. and 2 :00 a.m. on Sundays. The proposed development also includes a full service bar, an addition of an open patio for dining and drinking purposes, and the use of live entertain- ment within the restaurant facility. The.proposal also includes the request of an informal off -site parking agreement which will provide additional restaurant parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, and a portion of Lot 3, Block C, Tract No. 470 and an abandoned • portion of Carnation Avenue, located at 2515 East Coast Highway, on the south- westerly corner of East Coast Highway and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Loomis Foods, Inc., Corona del Mar OWNER: Poole Properties, Inc., Corona del Mar Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. Ayes x x x x x x 1417(Amended) to June 20, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Amendment No. 617 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to Chapter 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to include regulations pertaining to the establishment and operation of restaurants; to restrict the hours of operation of restaurants located adjacent to residential districts; to modify existing regulations pertaining to outdoor, • drive -in and take -out restaurants; and to amend various sections of the Municipal Code regarding the permitted locations of restaurants and outdoor, drive -in, and take -out restaurants, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. -2- MINUTES INDEX Item No.2 A617 P x TJ May 23, 1985 c o x - a c v m a C= V' o r 0 T 0 z a=; City of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 1417(Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted on =sale alcoholic beverages. and dancing entertainment in conjunction with an existing restau- rant in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment is to change the Park Bar and Grill Restaurant's hours of operation so as to permit the service of lunch and dinner between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2.00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 10:30 a.m. and 2 :00 a.m. on Sundays. The proposed development also includes a full service bar, an addition of an open patio for dining and drinking purposes, and the use of live entertain- ment within the restaurant facility. The.proposal also includes the request of an informal off -site parking agreement which will provide additional restaurant parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, and a portion of Lot 3, Block C, Tract No. 470 and an abandoned • portion of Carnation Avenue, located at 2515 East Coast Highway, on the south- westerly corner of East Coast Highway and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Loomis Foods, Inc., Corona del Mar OWNER: Poole Properties, Inc., Corona del Mar Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. Ayes x x x x x x 1417(Amended) to June 20, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Amendment No. 617 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to Chapter 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to include regulations pertaining to the establishment and operation of restaurants; to restrict the hours of operation of restaurants located adjacent to residential districts; to modify existing regulations pertaining to outdoor, • drive -in and take -out restaurants; and to amend various sections of the Municipal Code regarding the permitted locations of restaurants and outdoor, drive -in, and take -out restaurants, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. -2- MINUTES INDEX Item No.2 A617 COMMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 MINUTES �x a O z c m z M A s r m City of Newport Beach C= 0 o L O O ROLL CALL INDEX INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the City Council recommended that the Planning Commission evaluate the Restaurant Ordinance wherein the Planning Commission appointed a committee consisting of a member of the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, and a member of the Planning Department who worked with the Newport Beach Restaurant Association representative to draft a new Restaurant Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker outlined the existing provisions and the City's proposed regulations. Mr. Hewicker explained that the new Ordinance is proposing to define the change of hours of operation, changes in food and alcoholic. beverage service, live entertainment, and parking that the City currently does not have. Mr. Hewicker stated that the proposed Ordinance would allow an increase of up to 30% in the floor area of the restaurant to be added for the purposes of serving alcoholic beverages without coming back to the City for a Use Permit. He cited that the amendment would make it unnecessary for the restaurant operator to come back to the Planning Commission if the restaurant were to remain open only until 12:30 a.m. Mr. Hewicker further stated that the Planning Commission would be able to waive parking regulations without the applicant having to apply for a variance. The proposed regulation would also allow all types of restaurants in all commercial and industrial districts within the City. There would also be development standards for sit -down restaurants, where no development standards now exist. Mr. Hewicker continued by stating that under the proposed Restaurant Ordinance, the Permittee has the right to be heard and present evidence prior to the initiation of proceedings to add to or modify the conditions of approval; the Permittee receives notice of the public hearing; the Planning Commission may appoint a Hearing Officer to conduct hearings under rules generally applicable to administrative proceedings; testimony is taken under oath; and the Permittee has the right to confront and cross examine witnesses. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council wherein the appeal may be made only by the Permittee. Mr. Hewicker recommended -3- is r, that the appeal period be changed to 21 days instead of the previously proposed 15 days. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to the supplemental staff report that provided additional information relative to the proposed Restaurant Ordinance by stating that staff has no objections to an amendment of the proposed Ordinance that would allow a restaurant to remain open past 12:30 a.m. on certain national holidays; that the reasons why the staff does not recommend an amendment which would give the Permittee the right to a new hearing before the City Council are: that members of the public would be required to testify twice; that there would be an additional expense to the City in terms of Hearing Officer fees and staff time; and that a 60 day delay could be significant to the public disturbed by the restaurant operations. Mr. Burnham further stated that staff would be willing to assist restaurant owners to develop a list of attorneys and /or retired judges willing and able to serve as Hearing Officers, which list would be approved by the Planning Commission and incorporated into the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Each of the approved Hearing Officers would be given a lottery number which would reflect the order in which that person would serve. Mr. Burnham stated that five cities were contacted to determine how each of these cities regulated restaurant uses: Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Los Angeles, Costa Mesa, and Pasadena. Mr. Burnham explained that many of these cities have an annual review of restaurant operations, and that the cities deal mostly with land use. Mr. Burnham cited that the cities are not very successful in stopping problems or eliminating the nuisance, and he opined the importance of adopting rules and procedures that are legally defensiable which will result in the truth being determined in an administrative hearing. Mr. Burnham explained that the first Ordinance considered by the City Council required existing restaurants within 200 feet of a residential zone to obtain specific Planning Commission approval of hours of operation in excess of 12:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, but the proposed Ordinance does not change the hours of operation or other operational characteristics, with the exception that the Planning Commission retains authority to modify future conditions of existing restaurants if there is a significant problem. _4_ MINUTES INDEX A m May 23, 1985 C o a x _ v y m z c C m a m z C z w o; 0 0 = ; T City of Newport Beach T that the appeal period be changed to 21 days instead of the previously proposed 15 days. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to the supplemental staff report that provided additional information relative to the proposed Restaurant Ordinance by stating that staff has no objections to an amendment of the proposed Ordinance that would allow a restaurant to remain open past 12:30 a.m. on certain national holidays; that the reasons why the staff does not recommend an amendment which would give the Permittee the right to a new hearing before the City Council are: that members of the public would be required to testify twice; that there would be an additional expense to the City in terms of Hearing Officer fees and staff time; and that a 60 day delay could be significant to the public disturbed by the restaurant operations. Mr. Burnham further stated that staff would be willing to assist restaurant owners to develop a list of attorneys and /or retired judges willing and able to serve as Hearing Officers, which list would be approved by the Planning Commission and incorporated into the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Each of the approved Hearing Officers would be given a lottery number which would reflect the order in which that person would serve. Mr. Burnham stated that five cities were contacted to determine how each of these cities regulated restaurant uses: Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Los Angeles, Costa Mesa, and Pasadena. Mr. Burnham explained that many of these cities have an annual review of restaurant operations, and that the cities deal mostly with land use. Mr. Burnham cited that the cities are not very successful in stopping problems or eliminating the nuisance, and he opined the importance of adopting rules and procedures that are legally defensiable which will result in the truth being determined in an administrative hearing. Mr. Burnham explained that the first Ordinance considered by the City Council required existing restaurants within 200 feet of a residential zone to obtain specific Planning Commission approval of hours of operation in excess of 12:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, but the proposed Ordinance does not change the hours of operation or other operational characteristics, with the exception that the Planning Commission retains authority to modify future conditions of existing restaurants if there is a significant problem. _4_ MINUTES INDEX • • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, regarding how to deal with problems, Mr. Burnham replied that if there is a specific condition that is being violated, and that condition is causing harm to the community, then the City would institute revocation proceedings, people would testify before the Planning Commission, and if the restaurant would continue to operate in violation of the use permit, then the City would have an opportunity to go to Court. Mr. Burnham confirmed with Commissioner Person that in the event of a lawsuit, that the case would be filed as a public nuisance. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Doug Cavanaugh, 114 Garnet Street, Balboa Island, spoke on behalf of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association. Mr. Cavanaugh emphasized the Association's disapproval of the Ordinance's first draft and their hesitation of the second draft. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that included in the Association's concerns is the fact that an existing restaurant's use permit could be changed, if approved prior to November 1983, even though the restaurant has done nothing wrong, and he recommended that because there is a very small percentage of restaurants in the City that are a problem, that there should not be an Ordinance covering the City's entire restaurant operation. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that the Association's plan includes a code of ethics setting forth operational etiquette for all types of restaurants including specific guidelines for restaurants adjacent to residential areas. If a resident would have a problem with a neighboring restaurant then that resident would be able to contact the Newport Beach Restaurant Association at which time there would be a meeting between the resident, restaurant owner, and a three member committee of the Association. If the result would not be satisfactory to the resident, then the resident would have the option to go to the City which would be able to revoke the use permit or initiate Assembly Bill 2447 allowing the City to approach restaurants that do not have use permits but do have alcoholic beverage licenses. Mr. Cavanaugh cited that the restaurant operators' primary concern regarding the proposed Restaurant Ordinance is that the rules would be changed after the initial investment of the restaurants. Mr. Burnham asked Mr. Cavanaugh what would happen if a member of the Association does not follow the _5_ MINUTES INDEX F x m May 23, 1985 c o 0 x _ v v m C z c m D m z C a M m c 3 0 0 City of Newport Beach z a z In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, regarding how to deal with problems, Mr. Burnham replied that if there is a specific condition that is being violated, and that condition is causing harm to the community, then the City would institute revocation proceedings, people would testify before the Planning Commission, and if the restaurant would continue to operate in violation of the use permit, then the City would have an opportunity to go to Court. Mr. Burnham confirmed with Commissioner Person that in the event of a lawsuit, that the case would be filed as a public nuisance. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Doug Cavanaugh, 114 Garnet Street, Balboa Island, spoke on behalf of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association. Mr. Cavanaugh emphasized the Association's disapproval of the Ordinance's first draft and their hesitation of the second draft. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that included in the Association's concerns is the fact that an existing restaurant's use permit could be changed, if approved prior to November 1983, even though the restaurant has done nothing wrong, and he recommended that because there is a very small percentage of restaurants in the City that are a problem, that there should not be an Ordinance covering the City's entire restaurant operation. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that the Association's plan includes a code of ethics setting forth operational etiquette for all types of restaurants including specific guidelines for restaurants adjacent to residential areas. If a resident would have a problem with a neighboring restaurant then that resident would be able to contact the Newport Beach Restaurant Association at which time there would be a meeting between the resident, restaurant owner, and a three member committee of the Association. If the result would not be satisfactory to the resident, then the resident would have the option to go to the City which would be able to revoke the use permit or initiate Assembly Bill 2447 allowing the City to approach restaurants that do not have use permits but do have alcoholic beverage licenses. Mr. Cavanaugh cited that the restaurant operators' primary concern regarding the proposed Restaurant Ordinance is that the rules would be changed after the initial investment of the restaurants. Mr. Burnham asked Mr. Cavanaugh what would happen if a member of the Association does not follow the _5_ MINUTES INDEX MINUTES INDEX x x Tj May 23, 1985 guidelines. Mr. Cavanaugh replied that the member C o n would meet with several members of the Board of _ C z c v m 9 y m m z � Z 0 O S O T O Z 9 to approve applications composed of existing of Newport Beach Z City 0 a m INDEX N guidelines. Mr. Cavanaugh replied that the member would meet with several members of the Board of Directors. Mr. Burnham asked if there would be a problem with a private association delegating the power to approve applications composed of existing restaurants that the new applicant may compete? Mr. Cavanaugh replied that the purpose would be to submit guidelines to the new operators. Mr. Burnham emphasized that the proposed Ordinance only gives the Planning Commission power to correct.establishments that are not acting responsibly. Mr. Burnham replied to Commissioner Roppelman, that the City would not be able to delegate power to the Newport Beach Restaurant Association in the event there is a public nuisance. Mr. Bill Ficker, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Picker stated that the Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposed Ordinance because of the potential to punish the restaurant industry rather than the offenders, and that the Chamber of Commerce recommends that the City Council embrace the Newport Beach Restaurant Association proposal and to allow the Association a period of time to police their own industry. Mr. William Pappas, 224 - 20th Street, a member of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, stated that the curtailment of hours of operation would affect each restaurant's income and expense. Mr. Burnham explained that the ordinance would not require existing restaurants to change their hours of operation, and the Ordinance prevents the Planning Commission to restrict the hours of operation. Mr. Burnham explained that the categories of existing . restaurants are those restaurants that applied for an amendment prior to November, 1983, and received approval which allows the Planning Commission to modify or add conditions in the future. The restaurant that exists that does not have a use permit, would apply for a use permit, and there would be no fee. The Planning. Commission would be required to approve the use permit, and the only action would be to add a condition stating that the Planning Commission would retain the power to modify conditions in the future if there is a substantial problem in the • operation. The hours of operation have been restricted only to new restaurants that are not presently existing in the City, and he explained that those restaurants N "MISSIONERS May 23, 1985 't A C O x S 97 T z c m Z z C z 0 o S O O Z a Z a=, m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX are not necessarily restricted to 12:30 a.m., but that the Planning Commission has the power to approve hours of operation in excess of 12:30 a.m. Mr. Burnham informed Mr. Pappas that he has no objection that the existing restaurants have a mandate over a 12 month period to either apply for a use permit to have the condition imposed or the restaurant operator write a letter that the restaurant operator agrees with the condition in Subsection "D" and the procedures outlined in Subsection "E" and Subsection "F" of the Restaurant Ordinance. Mr. Jim Dillman, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the Ordinance because it is imposing conditions on existing businesses. Mr. Burnham commented that if the Planning Commission would want to alter the hours of operation, that a portion of Section 20.72.020, Subsection "C", could be deleted that states "does one of the following: 1. Alters the hours of operation such that it is no longer subject to the provisions of this subsection; or ", which would eliminate any reference to the hours of operation. Mr. Bert Blender, President of the Grinder Restaurant, appeared before the Pommission, opposing the Ordinance by stating that 20% of the subject restaurant's business is between the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the Association opposes Section 20.72.020, Subsection "C" because it would give an option for the restaurant to curtail the hours of operation. Mr. Cavanaugh commented that after the grace period of one year, that the restaurant must have a condition in the use permit or the restaurant must close at 12:30 a.m., and he opined that if the restaurant has not previously done anything wrong that there should not be a condition that would force this action upon the restaurant. In reply to a question posed by Chairman Winburn regarding whether the City had previously imposed conditions retroactively on a use permit as a result of amending an Ordinance, Mr. Burnham stated that there are no retroactive plans in this Ordinance, but an amortization period that gives the restaurant time to adjust. Mr. Burnham emphasized that there are no plans to change any existing restaurant's method of operation. -7- COMMISSIONERS • Straw Vote Ayes Absent Ix Ix Straw Vote Ayes Absent x Straw Vote Ayes Absent x A# NoesA Noes Absent x Mr. Tom Allen, Attorney, Dove Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, recommending that instead of going through the use permit process, the Ordinance should be revised to amend the nuisance provision in the Municipal Code. Mr. Burnham commented that Mr. Allen is the City Attorney for the cities of Stanton and Los Alamitos, and suggested that Mr. Allen expand on the recommended nuisance provision. Mr. Allen replied that the nuisance provision is a police and land use problem, and that a Nuisance Hearing Officer and possibly a Nuisance Hearing Board be appointed to make recommendations to the City Council and Planning Commission, but Mr. Allen stated that he would recommend that the matter could be taken directly to Court which may be more effective than going through the City's bureaucracy. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Person suggested that a straw vote be taken according to each Subsection within Section 20.72.020 of the proposed Ordinance as each of the Commissioners may have specific ideas on specific items. The Planning Commission concurred with Commissioner Person's recommendation to straw vote. In reference to Section 20.72.010, Subsection "D ", Commissioner Person cited that each item in the "Operational Characteristics" Section provides a specific definition as to what circumstances would x x x x require an amendment to a use permit or an application for a use permit. A straw vote was taken to approve Section 20.72.010, "Definitions ". A straw vote of Section 20.72.020, Subsection "A" x x x x through Subsection "F" was recommended. Commissioner Goff recommended that Subsection "F" state that the appeal period to the City Council be changed to 21 days instead of the previously proposed 15 days. Commissioner Person concurred. Commissioner Koppelman requested that "exclusive of national holidays" be x x x x added to Subsection "C" as recommended by Mr. Burnham. A straw vote was taken to approve Subsection "A ", and Subsection "B ". Commissioner Person stated that he will not be able to support Subsection "C" because there have not been many restaurants that have caused problems during the past few years, and those restaurants' problems have been x x X x resolved; and that it would be unfair to impose new restrictions on existing restaurants. A straw vote was taken to support Subsection "C" as proposed by staff and revised by the City Attorney. MINUTES X x = May 23, 1985 A. 9 m W 9 M = 9 z Z r a = G ° 2 m City of Newport Beach • Straw Vote Ayes Absent Ix Ix Straw Vote Ayes Absent x Straw Vote Ayes Absent x A# NoesA Noes Absent x Mr. Tom Allen, Attorney, Dove Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, recommending that instead of going through the use permit process, the Ordinance should be revised to amend the nuisance provision in the Municipal Code. Mr. Burnham commented that Mr. Allen is the City Attorney for the cities of Stanton and Los Alamitos, and suggested that Mr. Allen expand on the recommended nuisance provision. Mr. Allen replied that the nuisance provision is a police and land use problem, and that a Nuisance Hearing Officer and possibly a Nuisance Hearing Board be appointed to make recommendations to the City Council and Planning Commission, but Mr. Allen stated that he would recommend that the matter could be taken directly to Court which may be more effective than going through the City's bureaucracy. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Person suggested that a straw vote be taken according to each Subsection within Section 20.72.020 of the proposed Ordinance as each of the Commissioners may have specific ideas on specific items. The Planning Commission concurred with Commissioner Person's recommendation to straw vote. In reference to Section 20.72.010, Subsection "D ", Commissioner Person cited that each item in the "Operational Characteristics" Section provides a specific definition as to what circumstances would x x x x require an amendment to a use permit or an application for a use permit. A straw vote was taken to approve Section 20.72.010, "Definitions ". A straw vote of Section 20.72.020, Subsection "A" x x x x through Subsection "F" was recommended. Commissioner Goff recommended that Subsection "F" state that the appeal period to the City Council be changed to 21 days instead of the previously proposed 15 days. Commissioner Person concurred. Commissioner Koppelman requested that "exclusive of national holidays" be x x x x added to Subsection "C" as recommended by Mr. Burnham. A straw vote was taken to approve Subsection "A ", and Subsection "B ". Commissioner Person stated that he will not be able to support Subsection "C" because there have not been many restaurants that have caused problems during the past few years, and those restaurants' problems have been x x X x resolved; and that it would be unfair to impose new restrictions on existing restaurants. A straw vote was taken to support Subsection "C" as proposed by staff and revised by the City Attorney. MINUTES Straw Vote Ayes Absent X Straw Vote Ayes x x x x x Ab Straw Vote Ayes x x x x x Absent Motion Ix May 23, 1985 MINUTES of Newport Beach Commissioner Person stated he will support Subsection "D" as it affects only future restaurants. Mr. Burnham stated that it is staff's intent to write a letter to existing restaurants that are referred to as "Mom and Pop" operations to give them the option of having the existing condition amended to conform with Subsection "D" and to incorporate the procedures with those that may eventually be adopted by City Council. Straw vote was taken as recommended by staff. Commissioner Person stated that he is in full support of Subsection "E" and that he would be willing to accept a list of Hearing Officers from the City Attorney and Restaurant Association and incorporate the provision of the selection of Hearing Officers into the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she believes that it is important that members of the community,be included on the list. Mr. Burnham stated that if the Ordinance is adopted, staff will contact the Restaurant Association regarding a list of recommendations and then that list will be brought to the Planning Commission. Straw vote was taken as recommended by staff. Straw vote of Subsection "F" was taken as recommended by staff including the change of the appeal period to 21 days. Motion was made to recommend the approval of Amendment No. 617 to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the motion, that the first draft was totally unacceptable to her but as the current Ordinance is proposed, it does not change the hours of operation but imposes a condition that will only be affected as a nuisance situation. Chairman Winburn stated that she will be supporting the motion, and that the comments from the Restaurant Association have been well received. Commissioner Goff stated that if the changes in the Ordinance would adversely affect any restaurant, he would not support the changes, and he commented that the Restaurant Association will be a benefit to the City in the future. A IXIXIX � Mott n voted' M I recommend Amendment No. 617 to the Cot Council MOTION CARRIED. c o �L L 9 S ti v m z C m y M m 2 L Z r S C z M Z N v i 0 O O D m O m a m z x z p z m m M X Straw Vote Ayes x x x x x Ab Straw Vote Ayes x x x x x Absent Motion Ix May 23, 1985 MINUTES of Newport Beach Commissioner Person stated he will support Subsection "D" as it affects only future restaurants. Mr. Burnham stated that it is staff's intent to write a letter to existing restaurants that are referred to as "Mom and Pop" operations to give them the option of having the existing condition amended to conform with Subsection "D" and to incorporate the procedures with those that may eventually be adopted by City Council. Straw vote was taken as recommended by staff. Commissioner Person stated that he is in full support of Subsection "E" and that he would be willing to accept a list of Hearing Officers from the City Attorney and Restaurant Association and incorporate the provision of the selection of Hearing Officers into the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she believes that it is important that members of the community,be included on the list. Mr. Burnham stated that if the Ordinance is adopted, staff will contact the Restaurant Association regarding a list of recommendations and then that list will be brought to the Planning Commission. Straw vote was taken as recommended by staff. Straw vote of Subsection "F" was taken as recommended by staff including the change of the appeal period to 21 days. Motion was made to recommend the approval of Amendment No. 617 to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the motion, that the first draft was totally unacceptable to her but as the current Ordinance is proposed, it does not change the hours of operation but imposes a condition that will only be affected as a nuisance situation. Chairman Winburn stated that she will be supporting the motion, and that the comments from the Restaurant Association have been well received. Commissioner Goff stated that if the changes in the Ordinance would adversely affect any restaurant, he would not support the changes, and he commented that the Restaurant Association will be a benefit to the City in the future. A IXIXIX � Mott n voted' M I recommend Amendment No. 617 to the Cot Council MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 xx c o � Mr. Hewicker explained that Jose' Murphy's Restaurant x z c m r me z Icz m a a= r 0 x w os00 M m O m s City of P Z m z m z� m Beach MINUTES INDEX The Planning Commission recessed at 9:.00 p.m, and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. • x Use Permit No. 1783(Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a restaurant with live entertainment and on -sale alcoholic beverages which uses a combination of on -site parking, in -lieu parking and off -site parking. The proposed amendment includes: a request to delete the existing restriction regarding live entertainment so as to allow more than two musi- cians; to amend Condition No. 8 of the April 10, 1980 Planning Commission approval so as to allow dancing in conjunction with the restaurant use; and to eliminate Condition No. 2 of the October 23, 1980 Planning Commission approval of the amended use permit so as to delete the requirement for 12 off -site parking spaces. • A modification to the zoning Code is also requested to permit the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a valet parking service. LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 79 -50 (Resubdivision No. 493), located at 112 -114 McFadden Place, on the northeasterly side of McFadden Place between Court Avenue and West Balboa Boulevard on McFadden Square. APPLICANT: Great Gazebos, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Raymond Smith, Long Beach -10- Mr. Hewicker explained that Jose' Murphy's Restaurant is requesting a use permit to expand the live entertainment and to add patron dancing. He said that this activity has existed in this location for the past five years and that the current owner is not the same owner to which the original use permit was granted, and the current owner did not realize that she was violating the use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that Mr. Lee Mallory, speaking for himself and not on behalf of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, is concerned regarding the parking during the summer months. The public hearing opened. at this time, and Mr. Hugh Coffin, 2122 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, appeared before -10- 0 X A May 23, 1985 c o � v x . - a m M c a 0 = o c ; = o o r m City of Newport Beach the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Coffin stated that the amendment to the use permit requesting live entertainment and dancing would be applicable to hours after 9:00 p.m.. Mr. Coffin referred to the petition signed by 28 residents supporting the restaurant. Mr. Coffin stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", with the exception of Condition No. 6, in which the applicant is requesting that 5' of the recommended 23 in -lieu parking spaces be waived because the applicant has been operating the same as the previous owner and there were no previous parking problems, and also there is no new demand for parking. He said that the applicant has obtained an informal parking agreement with Playa Realty for the additional 5 parking spaces as recommended by the applicant in the staff report. Mr. Coffin stated that if the waiver of the 5 parking spaces is not acceptable to the Commission, then the applicant would desire an informal off -site parking agreement as previously obtained in October, 1980, for 12 parking spaces on property northerly of the restaurant. Mr. Coffin recommended that in reference to Condition No. 13, that the dance floor be reduced to 170 square feet because there is not a need for a larger dance floor considering the 75 person occupancy load. Chairman winburn asked how the restaurant can control the 5 parking spaces on the Playa Realty property in the evening. Ms. Cathie Hickox, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission by stating that there would be an attendant available to reserve the parking spaces. Commissioner Person asked Mr. Burnham if a potential buyer could refer to the recordation of approved conditions and put use permits on notice when purchasing a business. Mr. Burnham replied that this is a possibility. Commissioner Person stated that it would be his recommendation to ask staff to develop amendments to the Ordinance or to submit information for a study session to alert prospective purchasers of restaurants or other businesses regarding required conditions of approval for the existing facilities. Mr. Burnham stated that a problem with recording a use permit would be that the applicants of small businesses may have difficulty obtaining consent of the property owner to place a record title on the property. Mr. Burnham stated that the rights of the use permit run with the land and the property owner or permittee exercise those rights, wherein they would be subject to -11- MINUTES INDEX • r �J the duties and conditions imposed as part of the use permit. Commissioner Koppelman inquired if recording the use permit would improve the situation, whereas Mr. Burnham replied that the prospective purchaser would have some knowledge of any required conditions of approval in respect to certain properties. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City's provisions require that the dance floor be a minimum of 400 square feet unless a portion of the dance floor is waived, and the prior operator had a Cafe Dance Permit. Adele Mallory, 1916 Court Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating that she cannot support the restaurant because it consists of a bar, live entertainment and dancing, and is too close to a residential area. Mrs. Mallory commented that the restaurant would impact the area that there is concern about the restaurant parking. Commissioner Person stated that the restaurant useage is the same as it has been during the previous five years. Mr. Steve Behmerwohld, 113 - 25th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, in support of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Winburn, Mr. Behmerwohld replied that there has been dancing and more than two entertainers at the restaurant during the past three or four years. Mr. Stuart Brown, 2008 -B West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the application. He stated that the subject applicant has painted and cleaned up the exterior and interior of the restaurant. Mr. Rick Lawrence, 2025 West Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawrence stated that he opposes the dancing and live entertainment at the restaurant because of the noise that comes from the restaurant. Mr. Lawrence cited that the new owner has a camper truck permanently parked in the parking lot on -site. Mr. Bruce Askey, 117 - 25th St., appeared before the Planning Commission, Manager of Jose' Murphys. Mr. Askey stated that the camper belongs to the night watchman who also works as a handyman at the restaurant. Mr. Askey stated that the Police Department has given their approval of the camper in the parking lot. -12- MINUTES x a m May 23, 1985 c o x - a v m C C 2 M N = p K = o o T r City of Newport Beach a the duties and conditions imposed as part of the use permit. Commissioner Koppelman inquired if recording the use permit would improve the situation, whereas Mr. Burnham replied that the prospective purchaser would have some knowledge of any required conditions of approval in respect to certain properties. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City's provisions require that the dance floor be a minimum of 400 square feet unless a portion of the dance floor is waived, and the prior operator had a Cafe Dance Permit. Adele Mallory, 1916 Court Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating that she cannot support the restaurant because it consists of a bar, live entertainment and dancing, and is too close to a residential area. Mrs. Mallory commented that the restaurant would impact the area that there is concern about the restaurant parking. Commissioner Person stated that the restaurant useage is the same as it has been during the previous five years. Mr. Steve Behmerwohld, 113 - 25th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, in support of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Winburn, Mr. Behmerwohld replied that there has been dancing and more than two entertainers at the restaurant during the past three or four years. Mr. Stuart Brown, 2008 -B West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the application. He stated that the subject applicant has painted and cleaned up the exterior and interior of the restaurant. Mr. Rick Lawrence, 2025 West Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawrence stated that he opposes the dancing and live entertainment at the restaurant because of the noise that comes from the restaurant. Mr. Lawrence cited that the new owner has a camper truck permanently parked in the parking lot on -site. Mr. Bruce Askey, 117 - 25th St., appeared before the Planning Commission, Manager of Jose' Murphys. Mr. Askey stated that the camper belongs to the night watchman who also works as a handyman at the restaurant. Mr. Askey stated that the Police Department has given their approval of the camper in the parking lot. -12- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS • Motion • May 23, 1985 of Newport Beach Mr. Raymond Smith, Long Beach, owner of the building, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith stated that he supports the applicant's request to waive the 5 in -lieu parking spaces, and cited that there are available parking spaces in the evening. in response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Smith stated that some soundproofing was installed in the building. Mr. Hugh Coffin reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffin stated that alcoholic beverages have been served at the restaurant since 1980. Commissioner Person asked Mr. Coffin if the applicant would be opposed to expanding Condition No. 14 that would reflect language proposed in the Restaurant Ordinance Section 20.70.020, Subsection "D" if adopted? Mr. Coffin replied that he is not familiar with the proposed Restaurant Ordinance. Mr. Burnham stated that the modified condition would add the administrative hearing process plus two considerations that would enter into a Planning Commission determination whether to add or modify conditions of approval. Mr. Hewicker asked what if the condition is added to the use permit and then the Ordinance was not amended. Commissioner Person replied that the condition would remain as Condition No. 14 as indicated in the staff report, or the condition would be amended if the Ordinance is adopted. Chairman Winburn confirmed with Mr. Coffin that this would be a contingent condition. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Eichenhofer made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 1783(Amended) subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the exception of Condition No. 6 which would state that there would be 18 in -lieu parking spaces and there would be an infor- mal parking agreement for 5 additional parking spaces on the Playa Realty property located at 102 McFadden Place, or at another location approved by the Planning Department. Commissioner Person stated that he will support the motion on the basis of Condition No. 14, and that the restaurant's parking spaces are in accordance with the Municipal Code. Commissioner Goff stated that he will support the motion and he stated that this support was partially based on the positive neighborhood testimony. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the motion and that she is impressed by the community's support of the restaurant and that the owner did soundproof and air condition the restaurant. -13- MINUTES C o f = y 9 m z c m o m z a m m z r a x C z H 09 O O z m a a z r m • Motion • May 23, 1985 of Newport Beach Mr. Raymond Smith, Long Beach, owner of the building, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith stated that he supports the applicant's request to waive the 5 in -lieu parking spaces, and cited that there are available parking spaces in the evening. in response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Smith stated that some soundproofing was installed in the building. Mr. Hugh Coffin reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffin stated that alcoholic beverages have been served at the restaurant since 1980. Commissioner Person asked Mr. Coffin if the applicant would be opposed to expanding Condition No. 14 that would reflect language proposed in the Restaurant Ordinance Section 20.70.020, Subsection "D" if adopted? Mr. Coffin replied that he is not familiar with the proposed Restaurant Ordinance. Mr. Burnham stated that the modified condition would add the administrative hearing process plus two considerations that would enter into a Planning Commission determination whether to add or modify conditions of approval. Mr. Hewicker asked what if the condition is added to the use permit and then the Ordinance was not amended. Commissioner Person replied that the condition would remain as Condition No. 14 as indicated in the staff report, or the condition would be amended if the Ordinance is adopted. Chairman Winburn confirmed with Mr. Coffin that this would be a contingent condition. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Eichenhofer made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 1783(Amended) subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the exception of Condition No. 6 which would state that there would be 18 in -lieu parking spaces and there would be an infor- mal parking agreement for 5 additional parking spaces on the Playa Realty property located at 102 McFadden Place, or at another location approved by the Planning Department. Commissioner Person stated that he will support the motion on the basis of Condition No. 14, and that the restaurant's parking spaces are in accordance with the Municipal Code. Commissioner Goff stated that he will support the motion and he stated that this support was partially based on the positive neighborhood testimony. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the motion and that she is impressed by the community's support of the restaurant and that the owner did soundproof and air condition the restaurant. -13- MINUTES ROLL Ayes Absent • x s c o � a y z c m V c a = W D 0 y r O C C O M m o m s Z n z a = � x May 23, 1985 Of MINUTES Beach Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1783(Amended, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINCS! 1. That the existing restaurant with the addition of dancing and related live entertainment is consis- tent with the Land Use Plan of the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. The Police Department has no objections to the proposed addition of dancing and related live entertainment to the subject restaurant. 4. That adequate off - street parking is available for the proposed restaurant operation. 5. That the use of tandem parking with a valet service 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 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 not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1783 (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 in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That all previous conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1783 and subsequent amendments approved • on December 20, 1979, April 10, 1980 and Octo- ber 23, 1980 are no longer in effect and shall be considered null and void. -14- Vr MISSIONERS May 23, 1985 xx c o � x z c m 2 C 2 W p; o o M a City of Newport Beach z 2 2. That the proposed restaurant operation shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 3. That the live entertainment shall be permitted only within the building and all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed during performances. The sound shall be controlled in such a manner that it does not become a problem for adjoining properties. 4. That any exterior illumination shall be confined to the site and shall be maintained in such a manner as to prevent light and /or glare spillage on the adjoining street and alley and nearby properties. 5. That the outside patio shall not be used for dining or drinking purposes after 9:00 p.m. daily. 6: That 18 in -lieu parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the restaurant use and that the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, an informal parking agreement shall be required for 5 off -site parking spaces on the Playa Realty property located at 102 McFadden Place, or at another location approved by the Planning Department. 7. That the applicant shall have exclusive use of all 10 on -site parking spaces after 9:00 p.m. daily. 8. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be limited between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. 9. That the restaurant operation, prior to 9:00 p.m., shall be limited to 9601 sq.ft. of "net public area" and shall include the use of the outdoor patio area, the interior dining area, and seating directly adjacent to the bar. Seating areas adjacent to the dance floor shall not be used until after 9:00 p.m. daily. • 10. That no tandem parking spaces or a valet operation shall be permitted on -site. 11. That dancing and related live entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., on a daily basis. -15- MINUTES INDEX ROLL MMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 xx c O � a y x _ C M m z c m, m z I= W a r o 0 A= M a I m City of Newport Beach 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys or adjoining properties. 13. That a Cafe Dance Permit for the proposed dancing shall be approved by the City. The dance floor shall be increased to a minimum size of 400 sq. ft. unless said permit is approved for a smaller floor. 14. That the Planning Commission may add and /or modify Conditions of Approval to the 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 to the community. MINUTES • Use Permit No. 3147 (Continued Public Hearing) Item Request to establish a retail commercial nursery with UP31 outdoor display of plants and related items, on pro- perty located in the C -1 -H District. The proposal also Cont includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to to allow the use of compact size parking spaces for a June portion of the required off - street parking spaces. 1985 LOCATION: Lots 61, 62 and 63 of Tract No. 1210, located at 1700 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast High- way, easterly of Mariner's Mile. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: William Ray, Newport Beach OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. William Ray, Newport Beach. Motion 111x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3147 to June Ayes x x x x x x 6, 1985. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent • Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the construction of a new church sanctuary -16- ROLL M N\bN()NLKS May 23, 1985 xx c o � x y P V OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Milan - V C 2 0 O X. 0 0 * m City of Newport Beach Dostel, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. building and related facilities on property located in the R -1 and R -2 Districts. The proposed amendment includes a request to remove the existing chapel and construct a new building containing administrative offices, storage and mechanical rooms, and a new chapel, and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 82 -705 (Resubdivision No. 723) located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews Road, Clay Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport Harbor High School. ZONES: R -1 and R -2 APPLICANT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach . OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Milan Dostel, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dostel stated that the applicant is requesting that Condition No. 3 be revised to read "that the undesignated basement area shall not be used for office or classroom space without prior review by the City of the parking requirement ". The basement area does not have a designated use at this time but there may be a purpose for the area at a later date and the applicant is requesting that the parking requirements be reviewed if there is another use designated. Mr. Dostel recommended that Condition No. 4 be revised to read "that the chapel shall not be used as an overflow facility for the main sanctuary during worship services ", deleting the words "concurrently with or" because in conjunction with Condition No. 5, which is the concurrent use of the sanctuary and chapel, the total of these facilities would be limited to .1,387 Persons, which is in accordance with the parking requirement currently including 251 off -site parking spaces. Mr. Ed Ware, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ware reviewed the drawing plans of the revised building structure and how the 9,850 square feet of the basement area will be utilized. Mr. Ware explained that 4,900 square feet could be designated for storage-or some other future use, and the remaining square footage would be used for circulation. -17- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 MINUTES c o f y M f a m z C m „q a M 9 City of Newport Beach C a W O 3 0 0 8 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Winburn, Mr. Ware replied that the roof will be dropped from 34 feet to 26 feet. Barbara Whitford, President of the Cliffhaven Association, 406 Snug Harbor Road, appeared before the Planning Commission'. Mrs. Whitford stated that the community is concerned about the structure's proposed increase in square footage in relation to the number of parking spaces provided. It was also indicated that the Church did not inform the residents of the proposed construction. Mrs. Whitford additionally stated that the Church lights reflect onto the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Chairman Winburn, Mrs. Whitford responded that at the Association's Board meeting attended by Dr. Huffman, the Board was very cautious in regards to the proposed undesignated space in that the increase in square.footage could allow more people to use the facility. Mrs. Whitford further • stated that the Board is also concerned that when the Church returns to the City to apply for a use permit for the undesignated space that there could be a need for additional parking. Mr. Rod Craig, 418 Snug Harbor Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Craig stated that since he moved into the area five years ago, homes and trees have been replaced by a parking lot and numerous buildings, and that in the past two years there has been constant demolition and construction. High intensity lighting now reflects into the homes, and in addition to Sunday morning traffic there are now traffic problems throughout the weekday evenings because of activities at the Church. Mr. Ralph Whitford, 406 snug Harbor, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Whitford claimed that St. Andrews Church has had a rapid enrollment growth since 1978 that has greatly affected the surrounding community due to the increase in parking demand and new building construction, and that there appears to be a limitless growth in the future at the expense of the neighboring community. -is- In response to a question posed by Chairman Winburn, Mr. Dostal replied that the cross lights were • previously not correctly in place and no one knew how to turn the lights off. Mr. Dostal stated that shielding has been installed around the lights so that -is- MMI5510NLKS May 23, 1985 X *o C 0 `ty v v m 9 = p = r ° City of Newport Beach the lights would not be offensive to the neighborhood, however, they have observed some reflection from the clouds. Mr. Dostal stated that the Church has requested recommendations from an electrical engineer, and those recommendations should be available within a month. The automatic timer is set to turn the lights off at 9:30 p.m. unless there are special activities at the Church, but he commented that there are only a few activities during the year wherein the lights would remain on to a later time. Commissioner Person commented that because of the complaints that the Planning Commissioners have received from residents and also as a good neighbor policy, maybe the Church should meet with.the community to discuss the lights. Mr. Dostal cited that the lights conform to the Municipal Code. Barbara Whitford, reappeared before the Planning Commission, stating that residents throughout the area are directly affected by the lights. Mrs. Whitford emphasized that the community was not aware at the time the residents supported the lighting, that it would be two high- intensity lights. Commissioner Goff asked Mr. Ware what the elimination of 6,850 square feet would architecturally do to the undesignated area of the building. Mr. Ware replied that the 4,900 square feet of basement space would be utilized for future expansion instead of purchasing additional land. Chairman Winburn cited that the City Council stipulated how much total square footage would be allowed, and that square footage that was lost in the steeple will be allowed in other areas, and she commented that the square footage was limited at that time. In reply to a concern by staff concerning Condition No. 3, Mr. Dostal,stated that the applicant would agree to insert "public assembly" in addition to classroom and offices, as not being acceptable useage in the basement area. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Goff made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 822(Amended) subject to the findings and conditions as written. Mr. Hewicker advised that staff does not have a problem with the recommended changes in Condition No. 4 when combined with Condition No. 5. -19- MINUTES INDEX May 23, 1985 MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Goff stated that he will accept Condition No. 4 as it was originally written. Chairman Winburn stated that she will support the motion, but she commented that she is concerned with the continued expansion of the Church in the residential area, and that she supports staff's recommendation of Condition No. 3, to reduce the square footage. Chairman winburn, with the approval of Commissioner Goff, amended the motion to delete "concurrently with or" in Condition No. 4 as requested by the applicant. Ayes Absent Ixi xlxlxlxixl Motion to approve Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Findings: DOCUMENT 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance . with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. B. USE PERMIT 822 (AMENDED) Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the uses proposed in the new building are consistent with the prior action of the City Council on Use Permit 822 (Amended)(1982) and the prior action of the Planning Commission on Site Plan Review 31. 3. That the construction of 6,850 sq.ft. of undes- ignated basement floor area in excess of the -20- x x 11 c o x . z c m z z 1 M 1_ W 0 3 0 r 0 z A= m City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Goff stated that he will accept Condition No. 4 as it was originally written. Chairman Winburn stated that she will support the motion, but she commented that she is concerned with the continued expansion of the Church in the residential area, and that she supports staff's recommendation of Condition No. 3, to reduce the square footage. Chairman winburn, with the approval of Commissioner Goff, amended the motion to delete "concurrently with or" in Condition No. 4 as requested by the applicant. Ayes Absent Ixi xlxlxlxixl Motion to approve Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Findings: DOCUMENT 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance . with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. B. USE PERMIT 822 (AMENDED) Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the uses proposed in the new building are consistent with the prior action of the City Council on Use Permit 822 (Amended)(1982) and the prior action of the Planning Commission on Site Plan Review 31. 3. That the construction of 6,850 sq.ft. of undes- ignated basement floor area in excess of the -20- V1MDhKl tK�l May 23, 1985 R R C 0 O S w � v - v m C z 0 a 3 0 0 City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL X 1 1 1 1111 1 INDEX original City Council action on Use Permit 822 (Amended) (1982) is unwarranted at this time in that the project, as conditioned, will result in a total of 8,150 sq.ft. of undesignated basement area on the site. 4. The approval of Use Permit 822 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental 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 improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That all conditions of Use Permit 822 (Amend - ed)(1982) and Resubdivision 732 be fulfilled. 2. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations except as noted below. 3. That the undesignated basement area be reduced by 6,850 sq.ft. 4. That the chapel shall not be used as an overflow facility for the main sanctuary during worship services. 5. That concurrent use of the sanctuary and chapel for activities such as weddings and memorial services shall be limited to a total occupancy not to exceed the sanctuary capacity of 1387 persons. 6. The applicants shall monitor attendance and semi- annually report attendance figures to the Planning Department. The applicants shall also monitor usage of the high school and on- site /off- street parking areas. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds 1040 persons per worship service or concurrent use of chapel and sanctuary for other activities, or if attendance exceeds 915 and usage is less than 858 of capacity for the high school and on- site /off- street parking areas, the applicant shall modify the project's operational charac- teristics to lessen ,parking demand in a manner -21- ROLL COMMISSIONERSI May 23, 1985 acceptable to the Planning Department or apply for an amendment to this use Permit to provide addi- tional on- site /off- street parking. 7. That in the event the church should lose the opportunity to park in the high school parking lot, they shall be required to come back to the City for an amendment to this use permit and provide adequate off - street parking. 8. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 9. 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. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:55 p.m. and reconvened at 11:00 p.m. A. Request for Density Bonus (Discussion) Request for a density bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code so as to construct an apartment complex with 65 units affordable to lower income families, and the acceptance of an environmental document. B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to permit the construction of 65 apartment units in the R -3 (2178) District. 0 -22- MINUTES No.6 A R C O 2 9 r 1 m C 2 c m z i C z 9 w z a 9 0 T 0 m City M= of Newport Beach acceptable to the Planning Department or apply for an amendment to this use Permit to provide addi- tional on- site /off- street parking. 7. That in the event the church should lose the opportunity to park in the high school parking lot, they shall be required to come back to the City for an amendment to this use permit and provide adequate off - street parking. 8. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 9. 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. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:55 p.m. and reconvened at 11:00 p.m. A. Request for Density Bonus (Discussion) Request for a density bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code so as to construct an apartment complex with 65 units affordable to lower income families, and the acceptance of an environmental document. B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to permit the construction of 65 apartment units in the R -3 (2178) District. 0 -22- MINUTES No.6 COMMISSIONERSI May 23, 1985 MINUTES Of t Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX C. Resubdivision No. 808 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide four existing parcels of land into a single parcel for apartment development, on property located in the R -3 (2178) District. D. Modification No. 3056 (Public Hearing) Request to permit various building encroachments to encroach from 1 foot 6 inches to 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback on property in the R -3 (2178) District. The proposed development also includes carports that encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot side yards and that encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 817 of the First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located at 827, 835, 843 and 847 15th Street, on the southerly side of 15th Street, between Placentia Avenue and Monrovia Avenue, in the West Newport Triangle area. ZONE: R -3 (2178) APPLICANT: Wale Development Corporation, Irvine OWNERS: Heltzer Enterprises -Villa Newport, Los Angeles Ronald C. Dick, Sr. and Elizabeth A. Hess, .Newport Beach Gustave Paull and Donna J. Paull, Newport Beach Carman C. Rodgen and Edward Paull, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Don Greek and Associates, Santa Ana Mr. Hewicker advised that the Request for Density Bonus is provided for under State Law, and the Planning Commission or City Council has little or no discretionary authority because the State Law does provide that a developer can ask for a 25% density bonus when the proposal is to provide affordable housing of this nature. -23- ,C F C O i x C 9 v m z c m m z ma L =r 61 I m o w M m i Z a = . = r m Of t Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX C. Resubdivision No. 808 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide four existing parcels of land into a single parcel for apartment development, on property located in the R -3 (2178) District. D. Modification No. 3056 (Public Hearing) Request to permit various building encroachments to encroach from 1 foot 6 inches to 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback on property in the R -3 (2178) District. The proposed development also includes carports that encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot side yards and that encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 817 of the First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located at 827, 835, 843 and 847 15th Street, on the southerly side of 15th Street, between Placentia Avenue and Monrovia Avenue, in the West Newport Triangle area. ZONE: R -3 (2178) APPLICANT: Wale Development Corporation, Irvine OWNERS: Heltzer Enterprises -Villa Newport, Los Angeles Ronald C. Dick, Sr. and Elizabeth A. Hess, .Newport Beach Gustave Paull and Donna J. Paull, Newport Beach Carman C. Rodgen and Edward Paull, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Don Greek and Associates, Santa Ana Mr. Hewicker advised that the Request for Density Bonus is provided for under State Law, and the Planning Commission or City Council has little or no discretionary authority because the State Law does provide that a developer can ask for a 25% density bonus when the proposal is to provide affordable housing of this nature. -23- 'VAMISSIUNLKS May 23, 1985 A x C o n x Z Z 9 = , ° City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL] 11 I Jill IINDEX Its In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff regarding the Traffic Study, Mr. Chris Gustin advised that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance applies only to signalized intersections, which would exempt the intersection of 15th Street and Placentia Avenue. Commissioner Goff opined that the subject intersection may not warrant a signal because of the close proximity to the Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue intersection, however, he emphasized that the subject intersection could be dangerous and stated his concern about the safety. Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer stated that as has been done in the past, if a development triggers the need for a traffic signal, that a condition is included that states that if a traffic signal is warranted at that specific location, then the applicant would contribute to the construction of a traffic signal. Mr. Webb stated that the subject intersection does have the potential need of a traffic signal and that maybe there would be cause to include said condition. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Hewicker advised that City Council has given the green light to Wale Development Company, not for a senior citizen project, but for $1,000,000.00 of funds for purposes of an affordable housing development. He said that the City has used a considerable amount of Community Development Block Grant Funds in the past for senior citizen projects and the City Council didn't want to use this year's funds for another senior citizen project. Mr. Hewicker advised that there is currently a senior citizen housing project being considered adjacent to OASIS in Corona del Mar. Mr. Hewicker cited that senior citizens would be eligible to rent at the subject project. Commissioner Goff advised that he believes that the triangle area has the potential for senior citizen housing, and he further commented that he sees a need for a comprehensive senior citizen study. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Edward H. Wale, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wale opined that the subject project will not be the last project in the triangle area, and therefore he does not believe that the developer should be responsible for installing a traffic light at the 15th Street and Placentia Avenue intersection. Mr. Wale .cited that the project does have provisions for senior. citizens because of the low rent, and there are applications on file for senior -24- r May.23, 1985 M] Beach citizens recommended by OASIS. Mr. Wale stated that there are no present guidelines as to how the applicants will be accepted. Mr. Wale stated that he approves of the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Chairman Winburn, in reference to the park fee, stated that she did not understand the purpose of the City giving money to the developer (i.e.: Community Development Block Grant Funds) , and then the developer returns the money back to the City (i.e.: Park Dedication Ordinance Fees). She cited that the triangle area is park deficient, and she questioned if it would be possible that the park fee be provided several years hence, or when the need arises for the funds. Mr. Burnham stated that the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the City Council. He cited that the Park Dediction Ordinance requires that fees be used within a period of 5 years from the time the fees are received by the City. Further discussion followed regarding the park fee between Mr. Burnham and Mr. Wale. Mr. Wale cited that the project would be much easier to finance if he did not have a $400,000.00 payment. Mr. Hewicker cited that there will be some private recreation area on site. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City is not asking for the entire dedication fee but will be asking for a portion of the fee. Mr. Hewicker advised that this is the first time that any suggestion has been made to waive any Park Dedication Fee, and because of the forthcoming Banning property development there will be more of a need for recreation and park facilities in the area and an effort should be made to provide same. Mr. Wale cited that if the fees would be postponed that this would inhance the development. Chairman Winburn informed Mr. Burnham that she would like this recommendation to go to City Council. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve the Environmental Document, Request for Density Bonus, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. 808 that would include an additional condition requesting that the park dedication fee be delayed, and Modification No. 3056, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Goff asked Commissioner Koppelman if the motion could include an additional condition that the applicant agrees to participate in a traffic signal -25- MINUTES c o mr .'o 2 c m 2 m Z a x a Z r O 2 m M M O a m r Z D Z a Z T M r May.23, 1985 M] Beach citizens recommended by OASIS. Mr. Wale stated that there are no present guidelines as to how the applicants will be accepted. Mr. Wale stated that he approves of the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Chairman Winburn, in reference to the park fee, stated that she did not understand the purpose of the City giving money to the developer (i.e.: Community Development Block Grant Funds) , and then the developer returns the money back to the City (i.e.: Park Dedication Ordinance Fees). She cited that the triangle area is park deficient, and she questioned if it would be possible that the park fee be provided several years hence, or when the need arises for the funds. Mr. Burnham stated that the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the City Council. He cited that the Park Dediction Ordinance requires that fees be used within a period of 5 years from the time the fees are received by the City. Further discussion followed regarding the park fee between Mr. Burnham and Mr. Wale. Mr. Wale cited that the project would be much easier to finance if he did not have a $400,000.00 payment. Mr. Hewicker cited that there will be some private recreation area on site. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City is not asking for the entire dedication fee but will be asking for a portion of the fee. Mr. Hewicker advised that this is the first time that any suggestion has been made to waive any Park Dedication Fee, and because of the forthcoming Banning property development there will be more of a need for recreation and park facilities in the area and an effort should be made to provide same. Mr. Wale cited that if the fees would be postponed that this would inhance the development. Chairman Winburn informed Mr. Burnham that she would like this recommendation to go to City Council. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve the Environmental Document, Request for Density Bonus, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. 808 that would include an additional condition requesting that the park dedication fee be delayed, and Modification No. 3056, subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Goff asked Commissioner Koppelman if the motion could include an additional condition that the applicant agrees to participate in a traffic signal -25- MINUTES COA/\/V\ISSIONERSI May 23, 3.985 MINUTES INDEX installation on a fair share basis at the intersection of 15th Street and Placentia Avenue within five years occupancy of the project. Commissioner Koppelman replied that she would not accept the amended motion as the developer is committed to a 30 year affordable housing period and she would like to encourage the development. Substitute I I I I I I I I Commissioner Goff advised that he would make the above Motion k stated condition as a substitute motion. Ayes- x x x x x K The Environmental Document, Request for Density Bonus, Absent c O x and Traffic Study motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Ayes C z 2 M T The Resubdivision No. 808 substitute motion was voted Noes - x - x x x x Absent x Z 9 a T m City of Newport Beach The motion to approve Resubdivision No. 808, containing Ayes INDEX installation on a fair share basis at the intersection of 15th Street and Placentia Avenue within five years occupancy of the project. Commissioner Koppelman replied that she would not accept the amended motion as the developer is committed to a 30 year affordable housing period and she would like to encourage the development. Substitute I I I I I I I I Commissioner Goff advised that he would make the above Motion k stated condition as a substitute motion. Ayes- x x x x x K The Environmental Document, Request for Density Bonus, Absent x and Traffic Study motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Ayes x The Resubdivision No. 808 substitute motion was voted Noes - x x x x x Absent x on, MOTION DENIED. The motion to approve Resubdivision No. 808, containing Ayes x x x x x x the additional condition to delay the collection of Absent x park fees for 2 1/2 years was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x x x x x x The motion to approve Modification No. 3056 was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. DENSITY BONUS Findings: 1. That this project provides affordable units in accordance with Section 65915 of the Government Code and Objective No. 7 of the City's Housing Element. -26- COMMISSIONERSI May 23, 1985 MINUTES INDEX 2. That because of the number of units and term of affordability, this request for a density bonus is reasonable and justified. Conditions: 1. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a maximum of 65 units of rental housing shall be constructed on the subject property. Of these 65 rental units, 20 units shall be made available to families earning 508 or less of the Orange County Median Income (very low income), and 45 units shall be made available to families earning less than 808 of the median income for Orange County (Anaheim -Santa Ana PMSA) as established annually by HUD. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. The term of this agreement shall be for no less than thirty (30) years. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S -1, and; 2. That the traffic generated by this project one year after completion will increase traffic volumes by less than one percent during any 2.5 peak hour period at any of the critical inter- sections as identified by the City Traffic Engi- neer. RESUBDIVISION NO. 808 Findings: 1. That 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. -27- xx �o X X _ C v r 7 m z c m m z I = r m City 9 = of Newport Beach INDEX 2. That because of the number of units and term of affordability, this request for a density bonus is reasonable and justified. Conditions: 1. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a maximum of 65 units of rental housing shall be constructed on the subject property. Of these 65 rental units, 20 units shall be made available to families earning 508 or less of the Orange County Median Income (very low income), and 45 units shall be made available to families earning less than 808 of the median income for Orange County (Anaheim -Santa Ana PMSA) as established annually by HUD. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. The term of this agreement shall be for no less than thirty (30) years. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S -1, and; 2. That the traffic generated by this project one year after completion will increase traffic volumes by less than one percent during any 2.5 peak hour period at any of the critical inter- sections as identified by the City Traffic Engi- neer. RESUBDIVISION NO. 808 Findings: 1. That 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. -27- COMMISSIONERSI May 23, 1985 MINUTES c co C r 9 z c a s a z r 0 C m o m s z 9 z M z �1 z Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I IINDEX 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 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 subdivision. 4. That a portion of the fees required pursuant to the City's Park Dedication Ordinance should be waived as set forth in Implementation Plan 2e. of Objective 7 of the City's Housing Element. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map 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 building be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connections unless otherwise approved by the Public works Department. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer and that the basic driveway width be a minimum of 28 feet unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the intersection of the public streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. -28- COMMISSIONERS1 May 23, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX r 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 8. That full width sidewalk be constructed, that deteriorated displaced curb and gutter be recon- structed, and that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the 15th Street frontage. That the existing storm drain system be extended from Placentia Avenue up 15th Street to the westerly property boundary unless otherwise approved by the Public works Department. 9. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. That the water system be constructed per Mesa Consolidated Water District standards. 10. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and parcel map. 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. 11. County Sanitation District Fees be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 12. That at any location where site drainage is discharged onto private property, the developer shall obtain a private drainage easement, prior to issuance of a grading permit, which allows the site drainage to cross the private property to a public drainage facility and shall agree to construct such drainage facilities as are neces- sary to convey the site drainage to a public facility. in the event easements can't be ob- tained, the site is to be graded to drain to 15th Street. The easements and drainage facilities are to be approved by the Public Works and Building Departments. 13. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a maximum of 65 units of rental housing shall be constructed on the subject -29- x� n r z c m Z ,� z r n = A = m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX r 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 8. That full width sidewalk be constructed, that deteriorated displaced curb and gutter be recon- structed, and that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the 15th Street frontage. That the existing storm drain system be extended from Placentia Avenue up 15th Street to the westerly property boundary unless otherwise approved by the Public works Department. 9. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. That the water system be constructed per Mesa Consolidated Water District standards. 10. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and parcel map. 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. 11. County Sanitation District Fees be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 12. That at any location where site drainage is discharged onto private property, the developer shall obtain a private drainage easement, prior to issuance of a grading permit, which allows the site drainage to cross the private property to a public drainage facility and shall agree to construct such drainage facilities as are neces- sary to convey the site drainage to a public facility. in the event easements can't be ob- tained, the site is to be graded to drain to 15th Street. The easements and drainage facilities are to be approved by the Public Works and Building Departments. 13. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a maximum of 65 units of rental housing shall be constructed on the subject -29- CON\/V\ISSIONERSI May 23, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I 1 I I I INDEX property. Of these 65 rental units, 20 units shall be made available to families earning 50% or less of the Orange County Median Income (very low income), and 45 units shall be made available to families earning less than 80% of the median income for Orange County (Anaheim -Santa Ana PMSA) as established annually by HUD. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. The term of this agreement shall be for no less than thirty (30) years. 14. That the fees required by the City's Park Dedica- tion Ordinance shall be waived for the 20 very low income units. All fees required for the remaining 45 units shall be paid within 2 1/2 years of occupancy of the units. That a $226,297.80 bond shall be posted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the parcel map for the required Park Dedication fees. MODIFICATION NO. 3056 Findings: 1. That the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback area are minor in nature and result in an increase in open space and greater separation between buildings than is required by code. 2. That the proposed carport parking spaces that encroach into the required side and rear yard setback areas will not affect the flow of air and light to adjoining properties. 3. That by having the carports and open parking spaces within the required side and rear yard setback areas, the overall height and bulk of the structures are reduced. 4. That it has been determined in this case that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property, or improvements in the neighborhood and that this modification, as approved, would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -30- �o :E - A v y m a z c m o m z n = 9 = m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I 1 I I I INDEX property. Of these 65 rental units, 20 units shall be made available to families earning 50% or less of the Orange County Median Income (very low income), and 45 units shall be made available to families earning less than 80% of the median income for Orange County (Anaheim -Santa Ana PMSA) as established annually by HUD. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. The term of this agreement shall be for no less than thirty (30) years. 14. That the fees required by the City's Park Dedica- tion Ordinance shall be waived for the 20 very low income units. All fees required for the remaining 45 units shall be paid within 2 1/2 years of occupancy of the units. That a $226,297.80 bond shall be posted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the parcel map for the required Park Dedication fees. MODIFICATION NO. 3056 Findings: 1. That the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback area are minor in nature and result in an increase in open space and greater separation between buildings than is required by code. 2. That the proposed carport parking spaces that encroach into the required side and rear yard setback areas will not affect the flow of air and light to adjoining properties. 3. That by having the carports and open parking spaces within the required side and rear yard setback areas, the overall height and bulk of the structures are reduced. 4. That it has been determined in this case that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property, or improvements in the neighborhood and that this modification, as approved, would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -30- COMMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 MINUTES �x c O � x - � v m C 2 C m z Z C 2 N O Z O O A m o m> w r City of Newport Beach za z :oa m a ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all Conditions of Resubdivision No. 808 be fulfilled. Use Permit No. 3149 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis court lighting on eight poles, 20 feet high, on proper- ty located in the custom lot residential area of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. Approved LOCATION: Lots 7 and 8, Tract No. 11605, located at No. 5 Leesbury Court, on the south- erly side of Leesbury Court, easterly of Belcourt Drive North, in the Residential Area No. 5 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Steve McConnell, Lake Elsinore OWNER: Robert Fenton, Lake Elsinore The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Steve McConnell, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. McConnell advised that Condition No. 4 be revised to read "that the light fixtures shall not exceed 22 feet above the tennis court surface" and the applicant also requests that the lights shall not exceed the top of the slope, at the rear property line at 190 foot elevation. Mr. McConnell stated that the J. M. Peters Company applied for a Use Permit in March, 1984, which was approved by the Planning Commission, requesting that the light fixtures shall not exceed 22 feet. Mr. Laycock stated that the J. M. Peter Company informed staff that the CC &R's restricted the lights to 20 feet, however, staff has no objections to 22 feet. is Mr. Webb stated that he has no objection regarding the slope at the rear property line. The public hearing closed at this time. -31- FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3149 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 the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. The development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses and to adjoining streets. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer and shall include a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the lights shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. • 4. That the height of the light fixtures shall not exceed 22 feet above the tennis court surface. 5. That 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. -32- COMMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 MINUTES x x C C n 2 x C A a V m � i C z m w e s 0 m;* c o City of Newport Beach z a = a= M m X ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Commissioner Goff made a motion to approve Use Permit Ayes x x x x No. 3149, subject to the findings and conditions in Absent x Exhibit "A ", including revised Condition No. 4. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3149 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 the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. The development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses and to adjoining streets. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer and shall include a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the lights shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. • 4. That the height of the light fixtures shall not exceed 22 feet above the tennis court surface. 5. That 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. -32- NAMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 MINUTES 7 x C O x i s a m z c m o z z C 2 N p; O O a = a a City of Newport Beach * Use Permit No. 3150 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the installation of a temporary UP3150 off -site directional sign on property located in the P -C District where a Planned Community Development Plan Denied has not been adopted. LOCATION: A portion of Block 5, Irvine's Sub- division, located on the southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue at Monte Vista Avenue, southwesterly of University Drive, in the Upper West Bay area. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Mesa Woods Development, Santa Ana OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Dan Wiseman, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wiseman stated that he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". Mr. Wiseman stated that the applicant would agree to a 35 square foot sign, because the importance of the location of the sign is more important than the square footage. The public hearing closed at this time. Commissioner Motion x Eichenhofer made a motion to deny Use Permit No. 3150 Ayes X x x x x subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed directional sign is inconsistent with the intent of the Sign Ordinance, inasmuch as the sign displays information regarding a develop- ment outsite the City of Newport Beach. - 2. That the proposed sign is similar to a billboard advertisement, and therefore, is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. • 3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3150 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing -33- COMMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 MINUTES �x c o � v m 2 c m Z ,�. Y C 2 N O i 0 0 9 z City of Newport Beach a a ROLL CALL Avon Car and Rent -A -Truck. Mr. Silver said that the INDEX original use permit did not have reference to trucks, and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental and that at the time the .applicant applied for an or injurious to property and improvements in the amended Use Permit, the applicant was advised that the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. City prohibited the sales and rentals of trucks. Mr. Silver requested that the applicant be permitted to Use Permit No. 3053 and 3053 (Amended) (Revocation)- Item No.9 • (Public Hearing) convenience of the customers. UP3053 In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit No. 3053 and Use Permit No. 3053 (Amended) that permitted UP3053A the establishment of an auto sales and leasing facili- ty. Said revocation will review the failure to comply Continued with specific conditions of approval. to August 22., LOCATION: Lots 72, 73 and a portion of Lot B 1985 (private street), Tract No. 1011, located at 3939 West Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of West Coast Highway and the entrance to Balboa Coves, in West Newport. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Stewart Silver, Newport Beach OWNERS: James H. Kindel and Balboa Coves Community Association, Newport Beach The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Stuart Silver and Mr. Dennis Gorniak, 3939 West Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Silver stated that the applicant can require that the . employees park automobiles on -site; that no automobiles are to be washed on -site; and that no signs shall be placed on the automobiles. -34- Mr. Silver stated that the name of the Corporation is Avon Car and Rent -A -Truck. Mr. Silver said that the original use permit did not have reference to trucks, and that at the time the .applicant applied for an amended Use Permit, the applicant was advised that the City prohibited the sales and rentals of trucks. Mr. Silver requested that the applicant be permitted to bring the trucks to the Newport Beach establishment • from the Costa Mesa storage facility for the convenience of the customers. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, -34- COMMISSIONERS May 23, 1985 MINUTES xx C G n x z c z m T C D z 9 a r m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Silver replied that he has removed the car washing machine, but that they do occasionally hose down cars and clean the windshields. Mr. Silver commented that they have the automobiles washed and detailed at other establishments in the area. Mr. Hewicker emphasized that the applicant cannot hose the automobiles down. Commissioner Person stated that hosing is the same as washing the automobile and that the residue from the automobiles goes into the storm drains. Mr. Hewicker advised Mr. Silver that the drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Webb explained that the applicant must provide a covered area wherein no rain water can get into the drain that the car wash water gets into, and he further stated that the area be connected to the sewer system, and not to a storm drain. Mr. Webb advised that the roof of the washing facility must be permanently attached and that a tarp would be acceptable around the attached roof. Commissioner Person and Chairman Winburn discussed with the applicant that if he is requesting to construct a car wash facility, the subject application may be continued to August, 1985, at which time the use permit will be reviewed to ensure that the conditions of approval are in affect. Mr. Hewicker commented that staff would- have no objections to a condition being added stating "that the applicant may wash cars subject to the installation and construction of a car wash area meeting the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department ". Mr. Burnham advised that the condition could be imposed assuming the applicant complies with said condition when the use permit is reviewed in August, and thereby the applicant could be saved an additional fee. The public hearing closed at this time. Commissioner Goff advised that he voted no on the amended use permit because he does not approve of the manner in which the applicant is presently doing business compared to the previously approved Palm Tree Motors. Commissioner Goff made a motion to continue the hearing until August Motion x 22, 1985, at which time the use permit will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Commissioner Goff stated that he would like to see the applicant submit plans before he would approve a car 111 11 1 wash at the facility. . After further discussion, Commissioner Goff amended his motion to state that Use -35- COMMISSIONERS] May 23, 1985 Permit No. 3053 and Use Permit No. 3053 (Amended) be continued to August 22, 1985, whereby the Planning Commission will reopen the public hearing, and that if Ayes x x x x x x the applicant desires to construct a car wash facility Absent x on the property, that revised plans will be submitted for the August 22, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker reviewed a request of Davcon, Inc., to install a relocatable trailer as a construction office for a period of less than 90 days on property located at 150 Riverside Avenue. Commissioner Person suggested that the applicant be required to provide adequate on -site parking spaces for all construction workers, with the remaining parking spaces accessible to the public. )[ R Commissioner Person made a motion to send the report C O = from the Ad Hoc Mariner's. Mile Specific Area Plan Review Committee back to the City Council with -a c m z recommendation that the Committee continue to review z Z T the traffic studies on West Coast Highway and not to Z Z 9= T m City of Newport Beach Ayes x x x x x x previously approved study .session at 2:00 p.m. on June Permit No. 3053 and Use Permit No. 3053 (Amended) be continued to August 22, 1985, whereby the Planning Commission will reopen the public hearing, and that if Ayes x x x x x x the applicant desires to construct a car wash facility Absent x on the property, that revised plans will be submitted for the August 22, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker reviewed a request of Davcon, Inc., to install a relocatable trailer as a construction office for a period of less than 90 days on property located at 150 Riverside Avenue. Commissioner Person suggested that the applicant be required to provide adequate on -site parking spaces for all construction workers, with the remaining parking spaces accessible to the public. �I J Commissioner Person suggested that the Commission discuss at a future study session what can be done to notify potential buyers of restaurants and other businesses regarding required conditions of approval for the existing facilities. A D J O U R N M E N T: 12:13 A.M. � * x JOHN KURLANDER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISION -36- MINUTES iness Inc.l Commissioner Person made a motion to send the report from the Ad Hoc Mariner's. Mile Specific Area Plan Review Committee back to the City Council with -a recommendation that the Committee continue to review the traffic studies on West Coast Highway and not to Motion x review the recommendations of the Committee at the Ayes x x x x x x previously approved study .session at 2:00 p.m. on June Absent x _ 6, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. �I J Commissioner Person suggested that the Commission discuss at a future study session what can be done to notify potential buyers of restaurants and other businesses regarding required conditions of approval for the existing facilities. A D J O U R N M E N T: 12:13 A.M. � * x JOHN KURLANDER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISION -36- MINUTES iness Inc.l