Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/1998• Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Vgegular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. • • NULL GALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Gifford, Adams and Ashley - Commissioner Gifford arrived at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Kranzley was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple- Planning Director Dan Ohl - Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonston- Transportation and Services Manager Niki Kallikounis- Planning Secretary ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Minutes of June 4. 1998: Election Results: Chairperson- Ed Selich Vice Chairperson -Tom Ashley Secretary- Dick Fuller Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway, and voted on, to approve, as written, the June 18, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: Commissioner Kranzley Abstain: None Public Commentx none Postina of the Aaenda The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 3, 1998 outside of City Hall. INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 • r1 U John R. Pautsch, Jr., applicant 301 Marine Avenue • Use Permit No. 3625 • Modification Permit No. 4732 (Continued from June 18, 1998) A use permit for a restaurant with outdoor dining and alcoholic beverage service. The application includes requests for a modification of off- street parking requirements, a modification of setback yard requirements, and to exceed floor area ratio limits. Planning Director Temple stated that the applicant submitted a request to withdraw the application before the Planning Commission meeting. SUBJECT: Minor Amendments to the Zoning Code City of Newport Beach • . Amendment No. 874 (Continued from June 18, 1998) (All items with the exception of Item #17 were Continued to the July 23, 1998 meeting.) An amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to make several minor revisions to the Zoning Code. These revisions relate to the definition of terms, land use classifications, land use regulations, nonconforming structures, the regulation of signs, public notification requirements, appeal and call for review procedures, and the removal of obsolete, redundant, and conflicting language. Public hearing was opened. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to approve Item #17 and continue all other items to July 23, 1998. Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried. INDEX Item No. 1 Use Permit No. 3625 Modification Permit No. 4732 Applicant withdrew application. Item No. 2 Amendment No. 874 Item #17 Recommended for approval All remaining items in the minor amendments to the Zoning Code were continued to June 23,1998 meting. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Modificati, City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment No. 98 -2 (B) (Continued to July 23, 1998 meeting) An amendment to the Development Policy G of the Land Use Element of General Plan relating to time - shares projects. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue to July 23, 1998. Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried. SUBJECT: Colony Apartments (Gannon Design, applicant) 5000 Colony Plaza Drive Modification Permit No. 4730 Request to establish a sign program for the Colony Apartments as required by the Block 800 Planned Community District Regulations. • Public Hearing was opened. Moira Boynton, representing the applicant spoke in support of the request. Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway made a motion to approve Modification No. 4730. Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification Permit No. 4730 Findinas: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Multi- Family Residential" use and the residential project is consistent with this designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of INDEX GPA No. 98 -2(B) Continued to July 23, 1998 meeting Item 4 Modification Permit No. 4730 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 California Environmental Quality Act under Class 11 (Accessory Structures). 3. The modification to the Zoning Code, as proposed, will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification would not increase any detrimental eff ect of the existing use for the following reasons: • The proposed signs are not visible from any major streets. • The proposed signs will not interfere with sight distance requirements from any public street. • The proposed signs are in keeping with the scale and aesthetics of the residential project. • The proposed sign program will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining properties because most of the signs are wall signs located on existing landscape screen walls located at the perimeter of the property. • The proposed signs will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties because there are no views from the lower level where the signs are to be located, or from • adjacent properties that would be obstructed. 4. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reason: The proposed signs are necessary to identify the residential project since the size of the project is large in scale. CONDITIONS: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved project site plan and elevations. 2. That the proposed signs be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department for sight distance requirements. 3. That this approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Corporate Plaza West (Coralee Newman, applicant) 1200 Newport Center Drive • Modification No. 4708 An appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee which approved a request to allow, in conjunction with the construction of two commercial office buildings, the following: Portions of the buildings to encroach up to 7 feet into the required 25- foot setback from the interior access drive, within the proposed development. A 7 -foot encroachment into the required 20 -foot landscape median width (specified by the Setback Site Plan of the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community District Regulations) with parking areas. Public Hearing Opened Coralee Newman, principal in firm Government Solutions, 120 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, representing The Irvine Company. She stated they hope the Commission would sustain the Modification . Committee's decision and deny this appeal. Ms. Newman stated they believe the approval that was made by the Modification Committee was the right decision, and, as staff has written in the staff report, it will improve the site plan and the design of the overall landscape and parking areas. She noted that, while it is not part of this modification, if there are any questions about Farallon Drive or the Newport Beach Country Club, they have met with the board of directors this week, and they are positive about this plan and are not a part of this appeal. She stated they would continue to work with them. Commissioner Adams asked regarding the extension of Farrallon Drive and the discussions they will enter into involved the issue of maintaining access to the Tennis Club via Farrallon Drive. Ms. Newman stated the Club has expressed concern with the safety and would like to see the road curve bit around the Club as it connects between Farrallon Drive and Country Club Drive. She stated they made a commitment to continue to work with them on that. Commissioner Adams asked if access from Farrallon Drive to Country Club still be maintained. Ms. Newman stated it does not change or preclude that in the future. Chairman Selich reminded the Commission that the appeal is for the variance that really has nothing to do with access, it is for the encroachments. • INDEX Modification No. 4708 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Commissioner Adams concurred that technically that is what the appeal is for, but stated that in the letter that accompanied the request for calling this up, it was an issue. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he has been approached by the adjacent property owner, O'Hill Partners, has met with the Granville people and, has been delivered some previous conditions of approval, which he has promised to put on the record. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that Condition 6 of the original Tentative Parcel Map 94 -102 states that in the development of Corporate Development West, a private street is to be constructed between Farallon Drive and Clubhouse Drive in order to provide vehicular access to the proposed parcels. Commissioner Ridgeway stated, if that is actually a condition of that map, hopefully the previous condition of that parcel map will be honored if this project will be constructed. He also stated that the condition doesn't state it has to be on its own parcel actually states you would construct that access vehicular road; and Commissioner Ridgeway has promised to put it on the record, and states that the road, in light of their safety concerns is important. Ms. Newman stated the recordation of that map is a separate item from the development of this particular parcel. She stated when The Irvine Company does record the parcel map, that condition will have to be met. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if that map is not recorded. Ms. Newman stated no, and that is not part of this process and is not required for this development to proceed. Commissioner Ridgeway stated it would best serve the reputation of The Irvine Company and the desires of the adjacent landowners to work on that access. Traffic Engineer Rich Edmonston stated that parcel includes an easement from the Country Club property to the other part of the map that is wide enough to accommodate this road. If that map records, it becomes part of The Irvine Company's parcel. In order for that map to record, the City has to sign that map, and the City Attorney's office has advised the City has the authority to withhold their signature until the conditions are satisfied for the road, and there will be a mechanism identified by which the road would be constructed. Chairman Selich asked if the parcel map will not record unless the conditions that Commissioner Ridgeway referred to are map? Mr. Edmonston stated that is correct but clarified that the condition specifically states with the improvement of Corporate Plaza, the road will be constructed. If the map goes forward, what the City would require is sufficient design to show how that road would be built, as well as, some • bond or other vehicle to be comfortable that in fact it would be built at INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 such time that the Country Club did their part of the work. Commissioner Ridgeway made a motion for approval for Modification No. 4708 pursuant to the findings and conditions attached. Commissioner Fuller asked if Mr. Vela was present at the proceedings. Mr. Vela was not in the audience. Commissioner Fuller stated he was the person who requested this appeal and he should be given the opportunity to speak Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification Permit No. 4708 Findinas: 1. That the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" use. The • proposed commercial buildings are consistent with this designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed and it has been determined that all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously certified environmental document (EIR No. 148, certified by the City Council on August 24, 1992) and that application at hand is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor changes in land use limitations, setback variance). 3. That the modification to the Zoning Code, as proposed will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use for the following reason: • The proposed commercial buildings are located farther back from the two main streets (Newport Center Drive and East Coast Highway) than depicted on the original development plan for the site. 1. That the modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning • requirements for this District for the following reasons: INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 The smaller landscape medians will allow additional parking spaces to be included in the project. The main portion of both of the commercial buildings is set back farther than is required by Corporate Plaza West Planned Community District Regulations, where the design results in two sections at each end of the buildings to encroach into the 25 foot setback measured from the parking areas and the interior access drive. The setback encroachments requested are located on the interior portion of the site and the required perimeter setbacks are being maintained. That the proposed setback encroachments will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining properties because the encroachments are located in the parking and internal roadway areas. 2. That the proposed encroachment will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties because there are no views from the lower level parking areas or adjacent properties that would be obstructed. • CONDITIONS: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved project site plan. 2. That this approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Robert San Miguel Residence 221, 223, and 225 Carnation Avenue • Variance No. 1222 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 24 Variance request to permit the construction of a new duplex that will exceed the permitted height limit by approximately 5 to 14 feet on the north side of the property and 1 to 5 feet on the south side of the property. Also included is a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) for the purpose of establishing project compliance pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. • INDEX Item 6 Variance No. 1222 Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 24 Continued to July 23, 1998 meeting . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Planning Director Temple stated that, in addition to the staff report, a number of letters in support of and in opposition to this request have been received. She also stated that, on the exhibit wall are exhibits showing the height of the proposed building from the north and south perspectives. She pointed out the amount of encroachment on the southern slope, which varies from a maximum of 5 from 1 to 5, and on the north slope there is a fairly significant 14 foot to the 5 feet as indicated in the staff report. Ms. Temple also stated for the audience and Commission that a great deal of study was done to try and establish the grades that were present at the time the existing structure was actually built Commissioner Ridgeway asked what staff used to measure height off of, an average of the two or the same. Ms. Temple stated, as provided for in the Code, staff measured the height of structures to the point of grade immediately below each roof element. Commissioner Fuller asked if there was any public view impairment that would result because of the variance. Ms. Temple stated the only public view that would be present was only down the side yards of the existing building. She stated there might be some private views from residences • across the street affected by this project. Commissioner Fuller asked if the setbacks were larger than required. Ms. Temple stated that is correct; she stated when you have a 40 foot wide lot, only a 3 foot side yard is required on each side, this project maintains 4 feet. Commissioner Fuller asked if looking at the front of the building there is no view impairment. Ms. Temple stated that is correct, not from the public street. • Commissioner Adams asked of this project being located in the MFR District, does this project meet the requirements of R -2 zoning. Ms. Temple stated this particular project would meet the requirements of R -2 District in all areas except height. Commissioner Adams asked in the height area if the variances being requested be the same. Ms. Temple stated no, the portion of the building near Carnation has an average height roof height of 26 feet which is 2 feet higher than the R -2 height limit. Commissioner Adams asked if there are any other areas that would not be in conformance with R -2. Ms. Temple stated the area of the variance as well, and it would also be a larger variation to the height limit. Ms. Temple stated in this particular case, the entire roofline of the building would require a variance if it were rezoned to R -2. Commissioner Ashley asked if the existing height of the current building was at 28 feet or lower. Ms. Garcia stated it currently a single story on the Carnation side of the building. 9 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Chairman Selich asked if the height, as viewed from Carnation conforms with R -2 regulations. Ms. Temple stated no, the average roof height is at 26 feet. She stated the ridgeline is less than 29 feet maximum as allowed by the 24 -foot height limit, but the average height is 26 feet where the R- 2 requires 24. Public Hearing opened: Hal Woods, architect, representing the applicant, stepped forward and stated they concur with the staff report. He stated he has a detailed presentation of slides and graphics. Mr. Woods stated they had several meetings with the residents, which, once they understood the nature of the variance, were okay with the project. Mr. Woods stated that regarding the overall height from Carnation, the ridgeline is below the 29 feet, they are 28 feet. Mr. Woods stated they shollowed the roof pitch to a 4 and 12 pitch, which brings the plate line up. He stated they have a 9 foot ceiling on the second floor; by shallowing the roof pitch, the plate lines come up, therefore they exceed the R -2 height limitation on the plate lines on both sides, and the average pitch of the roof by 2 feet. Mr. Woods stated his clients have allowed him to design a project, which is very compatible with the neighborhood and meets or exceeds most of the • requirements of the R -2 zone. Commissioner Adams stated he would like to see the historical photos. Mr. Woods presented the slide presentation and explained the photos of the site. Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Wood how high the roof is of the existing building from grade on Carnation Street and how does it compare to what he is proposing. Mr. Wood showed an exhibit and stated the rear rail is about 17 feet and they are asking to go to 28 feet. Commissioner Ashley asked how it compares to other structures on Carnation. Mr. Wood responded there are quite a few that are substantially higher. Commissioner Ashley asked if the neighbors who are on the same side of the street if their houses are at a higher elevation than what he is proposing. Mr. Woods responded he did not believe so. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Wood what the impact on the design would be if he changed the roof profile to meet the R -2 standards in the elevation facing Carnation. Mr. Wood explained his answer by referring to the exhibit. He stated they could lower the plate line to meet if they were to go with a 6 to 12 pitch but it would bring the apex of the roof up to 29 or 30 feet. He stated, in efforts to keep it as low as they could, and still provide his clients with a second floor with a 9 -foot plate, the average roof height comes to 26 feet. Chairman Selich asked why he could not set the whole structure down a little further; and was it because they were trying • to save the retaining walls. Mr. Wood stated yes and also the current 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 structure has a two -car garage with two driveway spaces; they are proposing four enclosed spaces and three driveway spaces. Mr. Wood explained they can do that with a two-car garage and a tandem garage, which increases the depth by 4 feet. If they were to slope the garage down, architecturally it would be a hardship on the client because with the garage protruding over, there will be a raised floor on a portion of the tandem garage, and a very serious problem can occur with water running down and potentially coming into the garage and house. Mr. Wood stated they wanted to keep the garage line as close to grade as possible. Robert San Miguel, owner of 221, 223 and 225 Carnation Avenue, stated they went to the Planning Department prior to purchasing the property to determine what they could and could not do. He stated they gave Mr. Wood three charges, which were, 1. Take advantage of the ocean and harbor views; 2. Two units of ample square footage and parking; and 3. Be neighborhood friendly. Mr. San Miguel feels that through Mr. Wood's diligence and professionalism the three charges were accomplished. He stated he feels their project will enhance the area. Mr. San Miguel requested the Commission grant their request. • Carol Rudat - 307 Carnation spoke in opposition stating felt this project would be block views and would affect their views to the entrance of the harbor. She also felt the project was not neighbor friendly. Also speaking in opposition to the project for similar reasons were the following: Tim Stevens -2511 Seaview Kent Moore - 2500 Ocean Blvd. Jack Mishkin - 2500 Seaview Jennifer Lloyd Colleen Jeffries- 216 Carnation Todd Schooler, architect and former owner of 214 Carnation. questioned how was grade established and is precedent being established. Planning Director Temple stated throughout her experience with this issue in Newport Beach, in determining the original and natural grade, particularly in areas where excavations have occurred either for a retaining structure or a basement, to the extent that we have some documentary evidence of the original grade, at the time the existing structure was constructed, the applicant has been allowed to use that grade. Ms. Temple stated where there is no documentation, staff would come to the Commission for an establishment of a grade. She stated, in this case, a great deal of research was done and it was reviewed by both the chief Plan Check Engineer, as well as the consulting engineer geologist. In their opinion, the representations are reasonably accurate in terms of the original grade at the time the existing structure was built. n U INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Bud Rasner - 208 Carnation, suggested the neighbors are willing to work out a compromise on this project. Mr. Rasner would be willing to support the project with four modifications, which are a flat roof; Mr. San Miguel sign a statement that would support a zoning change after theirs is done that would support the R -2; a good faith attempt to reduce the above curb heights by moving the project back and down after the establishment of what the grade is; and the trees that may be planted on that side would never exceed the height of the roof line. Mr. Rasner also suggested an alternative of a continuance to look at this alternative a little further. Mike Tourage, a member of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, speaking on his own behalf, urged denial of application for preservation of the coastal bluff. Gloria Sposte, of 212 Carnation, stated she felt this project would impact the value of her property. Doug Winston asked the Commission not to make a decision tonight and requested a continuance for the Commissioners to go to the property. • Commissioner Adams stated the existing entitlement on this site is for greater in height and 2 feet greater in width than the existing building. The existing building is not even close to the envelope of the existing entitlement. The existing building has 4 foot wide side yard setbacks, and they can build to three, so it can be one foot wider on each side. The existing building is about 11 feet or so lower on the Carnation frontage than the proposed and, in fact, the entitlement along Carnation allows them to go even higher than that. Commissioner Adams stated that what is being asked for is a variance for the back of the building, and that is what is shown in orange on the bluff side. He stated that, although he is very sympathetic of view impairments that will be caused by of the increase of height along Carnation, he does not believe that has much to do with the variance being asked for. • Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the owner of the project is within his property rights under property rights to block the view. He stated that the owner could do more but he is staying within a 4 -foot setback, not a 3 and he is staying below the height. Commissioner Ridgeway stated he is a supporter of property rights and if a person is in real estate, they are too. Commissioner Fuller stated it would be wrong to assume that they have not all looked at the property. He asked staff if all materials have been available. Planning Director Temple stated they have all been available for review; the staff reports became available on Friday afternoon. 12 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Chairman Selich noted that perhaps the audience did not get a chance to view the architect's drawing showing the existing building with the proposed building. He asked Mr. Wood to come forward and show it to the audience. Mr. Wood stated the reason the drawing was not submitted last night is because his office prepared it today Chairman Selich asked Ms. Rudat to return to make her point primarily because her testimony on the obliqueness of views is most applicable in this situation. Ms. Rudat asked if the green roofline (in the exhibit) was also a variance issue coming from the side. Planning Director Temple clarified the portion of the roof (in green) is within the ridge line elevation so the actual ridge of that element is conforming. She stated it does require the variance because the average height does exceed the 28- foot height limit. Ms. Rudat asked if they came back further, the average would drop. Ms. Temple stated if they created a steeper pitched roof then it could actually be the same ridge height. Ms. Rudat stated all the homes will be torn down and her key issue is where will the Commission stop at pushing out. Chairman Selich asked Ms. Rudat how many houses were between her house and the project. Ms. Rudat stated she guesses there are at least • four and maybe five. Chairman Selich asked how many of those houses are candidates for being rebuilt as this project. Ms. Rudat stated all of them, and the only one that would be blocking her view would be the one directly next door, if they wanted to push out. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Ms. Rudat the address of the condominium project to the north. Ms. Rudat stated they are 303, 305, 307 and 309: and she is 307 right now and is purchasing the condo next to her. Commissioner Ridgeway noted to the Chairman that some of the questions Ms. Rudat asked can only be addressed by the architect. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Wood to come back and address the comments. Mr. Wood stated the green area on the south side (of the exhibit) can be brought into compliance by lowering the plate but the overall ridge would still block her view. He also stated that two dwellings north of this property projects out some five to eight feet beyond the variance request. Mr. Wood stated the property to the south is currently single story and is on a natural bluff and extends out about fifteen feet. He stated if that property were to go up two story, it would go up approximately fifteen feet higher than this structure. Mr. Wood stated the issue at hand tonight has very little objectivity with respect to the variance. It has to do with the establishment of a second floor at street level, and they could go higher and elected not to. Mr. Wood stated his clients have informed him they will go along with flattening out the roof and do not have a problem with going along with an R -2 zone as well. • He also stated, as for as trees, his clients will be good neighbors, and 13 fkbl;1 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 they will keep the trees trimmed for the neighborhood. Mr. Wood stated they have made efforts to meet with people, and the plans have been on file with the City at least 45 days. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Wood if they could delay for two weeks. He stated everybody is here and they could set up a time and place, perhaps at the property, to meet with them. Commissioner Ridgeway stated he believes it is a property rights issue. He stated he is opposed to some of the extreme compromises that were proposed in signing any agreements. Chairman Selich closed the public hearing. All the Commissioners were in favor of supporting a continuance. Chairman Selich reopened the Public Comments. Mr. Wood stated Mr. San Miguel will go along with the continuance. A -sign-up sheet would be provided for homeowners to sign -up. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to continue Variance No. 1222 • and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 24 July 23, 1998. Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried. Commissioner Gifford stated a continuance is granted for everyone to have an opportunity to have a better understanding of the project, and the effect of the variance request Ms. Gifford stated she would like to ask all to honor Mr. Wood's request to sign up with him, and also if they are planning to appear to speak about this again she suggests they have attended the session. Commissioner Adams stated, if they would like Commission representation, he would be willing to attend any session or meet with any of the neighbors, and feels all of the Commissioners would be willing to do that. SUBJECT: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, applicant) 5180 Birch Street • Amendment No. 876 • Use Permit No. 3635 • Traffic Study No. 116 The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft. casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant • buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80 -seat Burger King 14 INDEX Item 7 Amendment No. 876 Use Permit No. 3635 Traffic Study No. 116 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Restaurant with drive - through service. The second structure will be a 2,510 sq. ft. building divided into two lease spaces for two, full- service small -scale restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq. ft. each. The project involves the approval of: • an Amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current limit of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites) and; • amend the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code, and; • A use permit for the establishment of a take -out restaurant use as specified in the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces, and; • the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study. Transportation Services Manager Rich Edmonston stated this project was subjected to the standard traffic analysis required by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He stated that result indicated two intersections would be impacted, and under the Ordinance, it would require some . mitigation. One of those was the intersection of Jamboree and Campus. The mitigation there would is the re- stripping of assignment of lanes on Campus Drive, which we have had a preliminary discussion with the City of Irvine, which controls that intersection, and they did see any problems going forward with that mitigation. Mr. Edmonston stated the second mitigation is at the section of Jamboree and MacArthur. In that case they are adding thirty some trips to that intersection in the morning, which is enough to cause the I.C.U. to increase one notch (over the City's acceptable level of .90) which requires mitigation. A preliminary view of that location suggests there are three different mitigations that might be made, two of which would specifically help mitigate their traffic in the morning. All three of these have been identified preliminarily as very expensive mitigations, probably each one in the range of several hundred thousand dollars, and one of them clearly over a million dollars. Mr. Edmonston stated they are in the process of hiring a consultant to provide more information in terms of cost, and the extent to which right -of -way may be required. He stated because they believe the cost of that improvement is not proportional to the impact of these 30 to 40 cars. What is suggested as a condition in this case, is that the re- stripping mitigation at Jamboree and Campus be done prior to occupancy of the project; and that this applicant would contribute a prorated share for the cost of the identified improvement at MacArthur and Jamboree. At this point there is not a dollar amount to share as to what that condition will translate into; but believe it will be proportional to their impact. Mr. Edmonston stated the question has been raised if this improvement is • covered by the Fair Share fees, and he stated it is not. 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Mr. Edmonton stated they had the traffic consultant study other fast food sites in Irvine, as well as, the Weinerschnitzel next door to this site, in terms of traffic in peak hour that was walk -in versus parking and coming and using the drive - throughs. He stated they believe, as a result of that study, the applicant scaled back the size of the project. Mr. Edmonston stated he is comfortable at this point that the parking that is provided on -site should be adequate for both the Burger King and the free standing building that has two restaurants proposed. Commissioner Adams stated he noticed the traffic report discussed the drive -up queuing lane and made a statement that it had a 7 -car storage. He asked if that is adequate and if there was queuing study done to back- up that claim. Mr. Edmonston said he did not believe there was. He stated he believes it refers to the amount of storage that is available in the drive -up facility before it begins blocking other parked cars. Mr. Edmonston stated it is fairly common in fast food facilities in Newport to have drive -up where the line does extend past that and snake through the parking lot. He stated, in this case, there is quite a bit of additional storage before it ever backs up to any adjacent property with common access or out to the public street. • Commissioner Fuller asked if there is reciprocal access or a common drive- way from Jamboree. Mr. Edmonston stated the drive -way is actually on the Weinerschnitzel parcel; this parcel does not have Jamboree access; it only has access from Birch Street. Commissioner Fuller asked if there is an easement or something we have to ingress and egress. Mr. Edmonston stated to his knowledge there is not a recorded that the City is a party to. He stated it is his understanding that there are cross - easements, and the site plan as presented to us and as shown in the staff report, does have aisle ways that are continuous with that adjacent property. Commissioner Fuller asked if the same owner owns both properties. Mr. Edmonston stated he does not know. Commissioner Adams wanted to follow -up on his question regarding the storage for the drive - through. He asked if we are requiring them the on- site signage to be reviewed by Traffic engineering; and also can the Burger King traffic that enters from Jamboree Road, how are they going to be signed to get to the drive - through; are they going to go along the aisle closest to Jamboree or will they be taken around the new food service site around the back. Also do we have discretion over that circulation? Mr. Edmonston stated the answer to the first part of Commissioner Adam's question is he does not believe they have looked at signage for this site up to this time. Commissioner Adams asked if that could be a condition, and Planning Director Temple stated we could have that as a condition. Chairman Selich stated it is understanding that the Weinerschnitzel next • door has a waiver for 29 parking spaces, and wanted to know the basis for 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 that waiver. Ms. Temple stated that part of the waiver was based in storage in the drive - through lane, however they did not research the specific findings that the Commission made in that waiver. Planning Director Temple made a commentary to clarify the circumstances of this particular application. Ms. Temple stated Mr. Edmonston described in detail some of the specifics of the traffic study as noted in the Staff report. The project does not technically meet the criteria to approve the project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance with a simple majority. Ms. Temple stated that, in order to be fully approved and recommended to the City Council, this project would require a unanimous vote of those persons present of this Commission since the Ordinance requires a 4 /5th majority of all members eligible to vote. She noted that while absent, Commissioner Kranzley is still eligible to vote. Ms. Temple stated she has been informed by the City Attorney that 6 vote plurality is required unless one or more of the Commissioners must excuse themselves because of conflict of interest. She stated that should the Commission not be able to achieve that level of majority in this particular action but still have the majority to approve the Zoning Amendment and the Use Permit, those would still be valid approvals and would move forward to the City Council with the recommendations for • approval on the City Amendment, and the Use Permit, but with a non - approval on the Traffic Study. Ms. Temple stated that could still be handled at the Council level, however, at the Council level it would still be required to achieve that some majority of 6 or 7 eligible votes to actually be approved. Ms. Temple stated this is the first time in many years which they have been confronted with this particular issue but she believes that they have provided within the staff report reasonable rationale for override of the TPO in this case Public Hearing Opened Timothy L. Strader, the owner of property at 5180 Birch Street stated he wanted to compliment the staff on their extensive analysis in the staff report. Mr. Strader stated he purchased the property approximately a year and a half ago when it was operated as a Carrow's restaurant which was 7500 sq. ft., per the Use Permit from the City, and the City required 75 parking spaces for that use. Mr. Strader stated in this particular case, this is a reduction in intensity in an existing restaurant because they will end up with 5,401 sq, ft., not 7500 sq. ft. Mr. Strader stated, in this case, they are installing 63 parking spaces. He stated, in answer to Commissioner Fuller's question that yes there is a reciprocal easement between Weinerschnitzel and his property. Mr. Strader stated there are minor impacts that this project creased based upon the assumptions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and they respectfully request that the Commission seriously consider an ability to proceed so they can take it to the Council. Mr. • Strader stated they have started to work on this project with the Staff last 17 • lLf_1 1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 February, and Mr. Gantes has, under the City requirements, paid the cost of the traffic and parking consultants. He stated they request the Commission adopt the Exhibit A findings with the conditions of approval. Mr. Strader stated, to the extent the Staff is able to come up the actual costs that might be applicable to this particular property, they may have the numbers prior to the final hearing so they can put the numbers in their financial performa. Commissioner Adams asked if there are any prospective tenants for the parcel. John Gantes, Franchisee of Burger King stated that, at this time, they have a proposal from Starbucks for one -half of the space, and there is no one lined up for the other half. Commissioner Adams asked staff if they are comfortable with the trip generation and parking characteristicsof the traffic study. Mr. Edmonton stated that, in this particular case, Starbucks would be competing with Burger King for customers looking for coffee and a light breakfast and did not particularly concern himself with that. He stated they have a standardized ratio which is used for small scale, full- service restaurants but • did not look at what the particular tenant might end up being other than the half of the building that might be occupied by Starbucks. Commissioner Ridgeway stated there was a letter of objection to the project and he wanted to make sure Mr. Strader had a copy of it. Mr. Strader stated he picked up a copy of it this evening and wanted to point out that the final paragraph is not correct. Mr. Strader stated that the CC &R's do not require the property owners' consent. He stated the CC &R's and declarant is the AEfNA Life Insurance Company, and it requires their approval of the architectural plans and has nothing to do with the property owner's consent. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Mr. Strader has a letter from Der Weinerschnitzel, and Mr. Strader stated he does. Mr. Strader stated he thinks this project will improve rather hinder their operations. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Edmonston if they considered the ITE manual has suggested anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the traffic that is on a system would be drive -by and use operation of fast food. Mr. Edmonston stated on page 14 of the Traffic Study, in Table 4, based on an examination they looked at, they allowed for 45 percent for Burger King and 20 percent for the other uses. He stated that, in addition to that, they did try to quantify the walk -in aspect, but these are the numbers used in the Traffic Study. Planning Director Temple stated she would like to remind the Commission, in approving the project, the full service, small scale category would provide for small restaurants of a much more conventional nature. She • stated they did not look for specifics for what they think might occur now, 18 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 but to what the entitlement is and what could happen there in the long term and try to assess those credits in that light. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Strader (because he is familiar with the history in the area), why Weinerschnitzel was granted a waiver for 29 spaces. Mr. Strader stated he did not recall what was in the staff report at that time. Commissioner Ashley asked regarding the Traffic Study stated it might be difficult getting into the property if westbound and asked to what extent do these types of traffic conflicts interfere with ingress /egress that might be related to the office uses that would be adjacent. He asked if this is something that we should be concerned about. Mr. Edmonston was something they asked the traffic consultant to look at, and one of the things that is a little unusual in a traffic study is there are different distribution patterns for inbound and outbound because, on Birch, there is a center median island that blocks a left turn off of Birch into the drive- way. He stated that, similarly, if you exit and want to get back into the area you have to go down Jamboree to a median opening and come back. Mr. Edmonston stated that most of those would happen at the signal light intersections, and there is capacity to accommodate that. • Jim Caulfield, Franchiserof Weinerschnitzel restaurant, which is leased from Mr. Woolridge, stated that both Mr. Woolridge and the owner of the adjacent office building have requested continuances of the hearing. Mr. Caulfield stated that because of the length of the package, the report being 125 pages long, it does not give them the opportunity to deal with the issues presented when they have less than ten days, three of them being a holiday. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Caulfield, aside from the opportunity to digest the entire report and perhaps have other items he wanted to mention, she asked if the principal area of concern has to do with parking and traffic movement on the site. Mr. Caulfield stated also that they believe as owners of the adjacent properties have rights under the CC &R's which are being amended. Chairman Selich clarified they are not dealing with CC &R's here. Commissioner Fuller asked staff who commissioned the traffic and parking study, was it developer paid for or selected by the City. Planning Director Temple stated, as required by the City's policies, the Traffic Ordinance Phasing analysis is done under contract by the City, funded by the applicant; and in this particular case, a combined traffic and parking study was done under City contract funded by the applicant. Commissioner Fuller clarified that the City selected who the consultant was who prepared the reports. Ms. Temple stated that is correct, and the • consultant responsible to the City f or its content. 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Chairman Selich asked Mr. Caulfield if he was aware of the waiver of 29 spaces. Mr. Caulfield responded that he was not. Mr. Strader stated that, from the standpoint of the request for a continuance, this matter will have to go to the City Council and there will be adequate time for these people to study the matter and make a presentation at the City Council. Mr. Strader asked for a decision this evening if it was any way possible. Public Hearing closed Commissioner Ashley stated that the project is asking for 15 spaces which is below Code standard. He stated the uses are well balance and the uses being proposed are reasonable. Commissioner Ashley stated he has no objection to the application. Commissioner Gifford stated she does not have a problem in terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. She stated that the people come in from Birch Street and go over to the Der Weinerschnitzel drive- through lone and block the end of the parking lane. Commissioner Gifford stated people • coming through also seem to be in the middle of the road there, not allowing for right turns down that parking lane. She stated there were pedestrians who have to walk in all the traffic lanes, and this is her area of concern. • Commissioner Fuller stated they have a letterfrom Newport Federal, who is adjacent to the Weinerschnitzelwho said they were not noticed, and they just found out about it today. He asked staff if they had been noticed. Planning Director Temple stated they mail to the owner of record on the Assessors rolls. She also stated, after looking it up in the files, that in this case it was directly noticed to Newport Federal at 4425 Jamboree so they should have received it. She stated they are typically mailed out ten days before the hearing. Commissioner Adams also agrees there is no problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance but is uncomfortable with the site plan. He is concerned about the pedestrian traffic also. Commissioner Ridgeway also agrees with Commissioner Adams in that he too does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He stated his problem is the on -site parking. Commissioner Ridgeway stated the waiver for the Burger King project is 15 versus 29 for the Weinerschnitzel, but when looking at in totality in the cumulative impact, it is 44 cars. He stated he is looking for a way to approve it because it is a good use of a corner that has been under utilized. 1001 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 Chairman Selich stated he would like to hear Mr. Edmonston's comments regarding on -site circulation. Mr. Edmonton stated when the traffic engineering consultant reviewed it, he indicated in his report that seven spaces in the drive - through lane were a workable number. He stated there is a considerable amount of overflow stacking from that standpoint before it would get out to that main aisle that would block to from Der Weinerschnitzel. Mr. Edmonston stated, in that regard, the Commission and Council have, on other projects, conditions that require the applicant or owner to take whatever steps are necessary to insure that the back -up from the drive - through does not obstruct the street. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Edmonston's professional opinion, given the constraints on this property, if this is a reasonable site plan for the property circulation wise. Mr. Edmonston stated he has not spent a great deal of time looking at this and trying to figure out if there are alternatives. He stated given the layout of trying to have some parking that is away from the Weinerschnitzel, it looks like a reasonably good site plan from that perspective. Commissioner Adams asked if he had any comments on pedestrian access. Mr. Edmonston stated he did not think there was an attempt to quantify the direction the pedestrians are coming from. He stated there are connectors from the sidewalk on Jamboree shown in the site plan. Mr. • Edmonston stated the access from the driveway at Birch is not as clear. He stated there is a condition that does require further review of access and parking by his office and typically that is the point where they look at opportunities for sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities. L Planning Director Temple stated the project currently exceeds landscape standards and the plan does show sidewalks on both Birch and Jamboree with connections to the property. Chairman Selich stated he too does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance aspect of it. He stated he was concerned about the parking but thinks it is a good use of the property and would be inclined to support it. Commissioner Fuller stated he would support this project. Motion was made by Commissioner to approve Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 and recommend to City Council. Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 A. Planned Community Amendment No. 876: Adopt Resolution No. 1470 (Attached), recommending to the City Council the approval of PC Amendment No. 876, increasing the number of restaurant sites in Office Site "G" to three sites and, permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. B. Use Permit No. 3635 Findings: The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the property is designated for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial' uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations). • 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of propertywithin the proposed development. • 4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size, off - street parking and wall requirements, meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (eating and drinking establishments) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application, for the following reasons: Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property. The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community Regulations. The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses, which primarily function during daytime hours. 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 2. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive - through food service and waive a portion of the required parking will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the Conditions: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage (63 spaces) shall be provided on -site. • 3. The gross floor area of the fast food take -out restaurant (Burger 23 INDEX legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use. • The project will not result in any significant environmental impact. . • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of the Koll Center Planned Community. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use, which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area. • The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change since the proposed uses are similar, and consistent with the General Plan. • That the off - street parking spaces that exist in the common lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property. • The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the Parking Demand Study. Conditions: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage (63 spaces) shall be provided on -site. • 3. The gross floor area of the fast food take -out restaurant (Burger 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 King) shall be a maximum of 2,531 sq. 4. The development standard pertaining to off - street parking requirements and perimeterwalls shall be waived. 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. 6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common • walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces. 10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive - through lane shall be relocated so that it does not block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the drive - through lane. H. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 12. All employees shall park on -site. 13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 14. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in • conjunction with the proposed operation. 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean -up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the • Newport Beach Municipal Code. Standard Requirements Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirementsof the Uniform Building Code. 4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. • 6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located 25 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 in compliancewith the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L so that it does not block sight distance. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. U. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters . stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top, which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, 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. 15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and • transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in 26 INDEX Item 8 A Request of the Planning Director In the Determination of Gross Floor Area In New Development Planning Commission directed Staff to study further. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights -of -way. 16. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. C. Traffic Study No. 116 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L -18. . 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major,' 'primary- modified: or 'primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have completed the improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Traffic Engineer shall determine, and the applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 27 Additional Business INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 SUBJECT: A Request of the Planning Director for Direction in the Determination of Gross Floor Area in New Development Give direction to staff regarding a floor area determination for a project a 221 Heliotrope, and for a typical patio design. Additionally, if desired, give direction for staff to study potential amendments to the Zoning code related to the definition of gross floor area. Ms. Temple stated, in brief, the issues presented here are both related to what constitutes gross floor area as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance are incurring problems at the Staff level as to what is and is not counted. She stated Staff is requesting the Commission authorize them to do further study and perhaps suggest proposed changes to the code in this regard. Mr. Jeannette stated he has pictures of various projects that he has done throughout the City going back as many as 15 years ago, and indicating how they were able to park more cars on the site without creating an • additional square foot of buildable area because they were left open. In discussions Mr. Jeannette had in the past with previous Planning Directors, he stated their thoughts basically fell behind the concept that, if a space were at least 50 percent open, that, in that case, meant the wall two sides or a side a rear were open to the extent that each of those were 50 percent open; they deemed it to be an open wall, therefore it met the criteria for not being counted as buildable area. Mr. Jeannette stated one of the most important things with this concept is whetherwe will see a capturing of that square footage in time. Mr. Jeannette stated the openness issue is something that they have met. He stated basically what they are looking for is to maintain the idea of utilizing the basement area for parking spaces. Mr. Jeannette stated there were many portions of the code that do support the concept. Planning Commission approved the deletion of the open basement from floor area calculations 221 Heliotrope, and directed Staff to further study potential amendments to the Zoning code related to the definition of gross floor area. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Planning Director regarding City Council actions related to planning -the Recreation and Open Space Element was approved; Marina Lido Village • tidelands lease was denied. 28 INDEX Item 8 Request of Planning Director in the determination of the Gross Floor Area in new development Staff to study further Adjournement • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 • b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee -none. C.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford requested to be excused August 6th and August 20th. ADJOURNMENT. 11:30 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION i INDEX