Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1995COMMISSIONERS Pre Ayes Abs a 01 9p �F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: * , nn I ( = MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL * * * * * All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Pomeroy sent arrived at 7:35 p.m.) * *s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Kenneth Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attomey *s� James Hewicker, Planning Director Patty Temple, Planning Manager Jay Garcia, Senior Planner Christy Teague, Associate Planner Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer Joanne MacQuarrie, Secretary Minutes of July 6. 1995 Minutes i 7 -6 -95 * Motion was made and voted on to approve the July 6, 1995, * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Approved ant * *s Public Comments: None Public Comments ► *r Posting of the nda: Posting of the Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building, stated that the Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 14, 1995, in front of City Hall. )f COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 825 (Public Hearing) Agenda Item No,l. Request to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to permit "bars" and "theater /nightclubs" in the RSC, A. 825 APF, RMC and M -1 -A Zoning Districts as well as various Specific Area Plans and Planned Community Districts Citywide, subject to the securing, Continued to 8 -1D -95 of a use permit in each case. INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Ken Defino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building surnrnarized previous action by the City Council which separated the definition of "restaurant" into three categories: "restaurant," "bar" and "theater /nightclubs." Tonight's requested action is essentially a housekeeping one to put the definition into all of the codes and to indicate in the Table of Allowable Uses where the additional definitions of "bars" and "theater / nighclubs" is allowed. Assistant City Attorney Clauson explained that the definitions are not being placed into any district where they were not potentially allowed before, but by virtue of creating separate definitions for "restaurants," "bars" and "theater /nightclubs," the proposed action became necessary. Replying to questions from Chairman Ridgeway and Commissioner Kranzley, Ms. Clauson stated that prior to the Council action, the three uses were processed under the restaurant definition. Before the definitions were changed, bars and theater /nightclubs were permitted, subject to securing a use permit, in the RSC Districts throughout the City and in various Planned Community Districts. Commissioner Gifford stated the Balboa Peninsula Advisory Committe, studying enforcement problems on the peninsula, found that there is a hugely disproportionate number of liquor licenseses, per capita on the peninsula, compared to the rest of the county and to other cities in the -2- COMMISSIONERS Moti All 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX couniy. She said she would consider supporting the action if the specific area plans specified in the staff report, Newport Shores, Mariners' Mile, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, and Central Balboa were removed from the proposal, or she would support a motion to continue the action to allow additional study of the proposal. on * Motion was made to continue Amendment 825 to the August 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, to allow further study and review by staff. Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and staff regarding the appropriateness of adding bars and theatretnightclubs to the permitted use in the specified Specific Area Plan districts. Mention was made that each component should be evaluated separately for inclusion into the specified areas, and to consider separating "bars" and "theatretnightclubs" into individual definitions. It was suggested that the Commission should be provided with the number of businesses already in existence that would fall within the definitions of "bars" and ` theatre/nightclubs "in the areas designated in the proposed amendment. Ayes Motion voted. MOTION CARRIED. *�a Amendment No. 826 (Public Hearing) Agenda Item No.: Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to add "nail salons" to the table of perntted uses in the RSC, APF and RMC A. 826 Districts, as well as various Specific Area Plans, to delete the use permit Approved requirement for "nail salons" within various Specific Area Plans, and to add specific parking requirements for retail and service establishments to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Assistant City Manager Ken Delino stated that as a result of City Council action establishing a distinct definition for "nail salons" under the Personal -3- COMMISSIONERS k\ok �pp • Mot: All • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Services category, this definition must now be added to various sections of the Municipal Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Selich, retiring Planning Director Tun Hewicker stated that to the best of his knowlege, within all the City shopping centers there are reciprocal parking agreements for all the uses within the center. If a nail salon wanted to go into a center where a use permit was required, parking would have to be provided for not only the restaurant and retail uses within the center, but also additional parking, for the salon itself. This amendment does not include all areas of the City, primarily it excludes some of the larger Planned Community areas where shopping center parking is not a major problem, but for the smaller centers and strip commercial areas a new nail salon would be required to provide one parking space for each 80 square feet of gross floor area. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Lon * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resolution No. 1397 and to Ayes recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 826. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 827 CPublic Hearinal Agenda Item No Request of the Irvine Company to amend Districting Maps No. 49 and 50, rezoning property from the APF -H and O-S Districts to the P -C (Planned A. 827 lati Community) District and adopt Planned Community District Reguons. LOCATION: 500 Block of Newport Center Drive. Generally located at the southwesterly comer of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road; bounded by San Joaquin Hills Drive, Avocado Avenue, San Nicholas Drive, Newport Center Drive and Santa Rosa Drive. Parcel No. I of P.M. 13/41, Parcel -4- .3 PP 0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX No. 1 of P.M. 21/18, Parcel No. 1 of P.M. 54/23, Parcel No. 14 of P.M. 192/1 -2, Parcel No. I of P.M. 27/43 and a Portion of Block 93 of the Irvine's Subdivison. ZONE: APF -H, O-S OWNERS: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach; First American Trust, Santa Ana; Boyd I- iggins„ Burbank; Ron E. Presta Trust, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The Irvine Company on behalf of the property owners. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Tom Redwitz, Vice President, The Irvine Company, addressed the Planning Commission and replied to a question from Commissioner Adams as to the reason for the proposed action. He explained that the existing parking for Block 500, per the City zoning ordinance, indicates that the parking was deficient, even though presently there appears to be an abundance of available parking space. In order to bring the existing structures into compliance with the zoning ordinance, Planning staff recommended that a Planned Community text be adopted for the area. Mr. Redwitz continued that no additional development is proposed, it is simply to provide standards that are consistent and bring the entire project into conformance with City code. In reply to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Redwitz stated the occupancy rate of Block 500 was 87 %. Responding to Chairman Ridgeway, Advance Planning Manager Patricia Temple stated that the Newport Center areas not under the P-C zoning were Blocks 200, 300, 600, 700 and the Country Club. She further explained that it had been a long -range goal of Planning staff to fashion a comprehensive P -C for the entire Newport Center area, and hence the recommendation to pursue the P-C zoning for Block 500 was suggested to the The Irvine Company. -5- COMMISSIONERS Mot" 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tuly 20.1995 ROLL CALL I INDEX Responding to queries from Commissioner Adams and Chairman Ridgeway, Assistant City Manager Delino stated that in this case, the parking surplus will allow the conversion of commercial office to medical office which has a more stringent parking requirement. Ms. Temple fiuther clarifed that, in this case, a change of use from commercial to medical office could be accomplished with a building permit as long as the parking requirement was satisfied. An increase in entitlement would necessitate amending the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Under the provisions of the General Plan, there could be a transfer of square footage from other locations to this this or other locations, if the parking proved adequate and if the transfer received approval from both the Planning Commission and. the City Council. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. (A) COMMISSIONERS • ��py c'�,9`9pL�� • .0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX In referring to a paragraph in the staff report regarding the waiver of certain restaurant development standards, Commissioner Adams stated he would like additional information supplied pertinent to those specific standards. Discussion ensued among staff and the Planning Commissioners as to what information would be most helpful and the most effective manner of presenting it. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson explained that there must be a connection between the changes of use proposed in an amendment and the conditions imposed, or a connection to a problem . Chairman Ridgeway opined that in the original application for a use permit an entire summary is provided regarding the project's physical and operational characteristics, and it would be burdensome to require the type of information being suggested for issues previously deliberated, however, violation of a use permit should be brought to the attention of the Commission. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that there are many restaurants with physical characteristics that are such that they could not meet today's standards, but they have been operating in the City for years. Assistant City Manager Ken Delino stated that the development standards data would be provided to the Commission by expanding the Project Characteristics Table portion of the staff report format to include a comparison of the existing project characteristics with requirements in the Zoning Code. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. James Patricola, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Patricola explained that Rothschild's Restaurant is currently undergoing a change of ownership from Mr. Helmut Reiss to Mr. Patricola and his wife, Heidi Patricola, daughter of Mr. Reiss. Mr. Patricola referred to Rothchild's eighteen year record of providing fine dining and being a responsible and participating member of the community. The request for a two hour expansion of hours, from 10:00 p.m. until midnight, would allow the restaurant to better serve their customers. He added that he was presenting to the Commission statements by 21 area residents, indicating they had no objection to the expansion. He stated he agreed with the Findings and Conditions of Approval. -7- COMMISSIONERS 0 k\I vzir� o 0 .0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Adams commended Mr. Patricola on Rothchild's unblemished 18 year record. He commented that often problems of restaurants that are located in close proximity to residential areas stems from disturbances caused by illumination, noise from patrons, and noise and odors associated with trash dumping. The nighttime expansion of operating hours can exacerbate problems when it interferes with the sleeping of nearby residents. Commissioner Adams reminder Mr. Patricola that if problems should arise, the use permit could be called up for review. by the Commission. Responding, to the above, Mr. Patricola explained that in his talks with nearby residents regarding the proposed expansion of hours, he did become aware of some of their concerns regarding delivery traffic, and arranged for alternate routes by the service vehicles. Dr. Lila Crespin, 707 Begonia Avenue, representing herself and husband, Mr. Emil Crespin, appeared before the Planning Commission to request denial of the subject application, and opined that the willingness of the applicant to satisfy residents' concerns is only recent. Dr. Crespin stated it has been up to persons such as she to vigilantly monitor the operation and this in itself is very burdensome. She cited several grievances relating to employees parking off site when the restaurant's use permit states all employees are to park on -site; noise from patrons; and parking lot lighting. She stated that originally Rothchild's had opened as a beer, cheese and wine delicatessen - restaurant and a subsequent use permit amendment permitted floor area expansion and valet parking. Dr. Crespin presented to the Commission a letter, signed by 10 Begonia Avenue residents, requesting denial of the expansion of hours as it would adversely affect their lives. Dr. Crespin added she had been informed by the Liquor Board that Rothchild's intends to incorporate and that as difficult as it as been trying to satisfy her concerns dealing with the restaurant's private ownership, dealing with a corporation would prove impossible. Discussion followed. Commissioner Adams stated he would like a map showing the locations of those persons who signed the aforementioned -8- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • \ \/- pia% \ July 20, 1995 • • ROLL CALL INDEX letter, and if problems arise such as described by Dr. Crespin, he should be contacted so he can ask that the use permit be reviewed. Dr. Crespin questioned the need to stay open until midnight, being a beer and wine establishment, and how the restaurant can monitor the arrival and departure of its patrons. She indicated that all signatories of the letter are residents of the 700 block of Begonia Avenue, between East Coast Highway and 4th Avenue. Commissioner Pomeroy voiced his concurrence with Commissioner Adams in that the Commission cannot take action unless it is aware a problem exists. He stated that, to his knowledge, no complaint, has been brought to his attention regarding this use permit and gave his phone number for future use by anyone present. Mrs. Marilyn Ellis, 621 Begonia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing herself and her husband, Mr. Neal Ellis, and addressed the continuing problem caused by service truck traffic on Fourth Avenue even though there is a posted sign that prohibits vehicles over 3 tons. She stated that, in the past, she has made calls to Mr. Phil Sansone, former Council Member, the Police Department, and Western Waste regarding her complaints. Mrs. Ellis said that employees not only park on the street, but she indicated they also change their clothes on the street. She opined that service traffic, on- street parking problems and disturbances caused by noisy patrons will worsen if the Commission approves the expansion of hours. Commissioner Adams questioned that if customers arrive five minutes before midnight, would they be served a meal and thereby leave the restaurant one or one and one -half hours later, or would they be turned away. Mr. Patricola answered normally the customers would be served a quick drink rather than a meal. Mrs. Heidi Patricola addressed the Planning Commission and depicted the Corona del Mar area as being a quiet and sleepy area with few dining establishments serving food as late as mentioned above. She described Rothchild's clientele as not being the type to come in for a "quick bite," but perhaps for an after -show coffee and dessert. She continued the restaurant is attempting to attract the customer who might arrive at 5 minutes to -9- COMMISSIONERS • 09oc�� <9 °��� 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tuly 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., so they could be served and their dining would be completed by midnight. In reply to a question by Commissioner Adams whether or not a compromise of a 11:00 p.m. closing would be acceptable, Mrs. Patricola stated her belief they had already compromised as the majority of nearby restaurants had a 2:00 a.m. closing. Discussion followed between Mr. and Mrs. Patricola and the Commission whereby Mrs. Patricola stated The Quiet Woman had a 2:00 a.m. closing, and Mr. Patricola stated they would be violating their liquor license if they were to service alcoholic drinks past closing time. Mr. Patricola stated that a, reason for requesting the expansion of hours was to generate as much revenue as possible, although it is not expected that sales would increase right away. Mrs. Patricola stated that as they would be in violation of their license if they served liquor past their present closing time of 10:00 p.m., they often must force the patrons out. She opined that the midnight closing would allow a more relaxed atmosphere for the patron and hence a more final, quieter and less neighbor- disturbing departure. Mr. Patricola said the extension of hours would allow a more gradual restaurant closing, and there would be less staff on the premises after 10:00 p.m. He stated he was aware that all employees were to park on site; that there were 23 on -site spaces available. He added not all employees drove their own car, some took public transportation and some carpooled. An average of 6 to 8 employees would be working at one time. There being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy commented he was familiar with problems that have occurred in Corona del Mar over time due to restaurants being located in close proximity to residential uses. He opined that management could exercise control over their employees, but had little control over its patrons. Still, he believed the applicant's statement that the later closing hour could benefit the nearby residents as management would have the opportunity to close down in a more gradual manner, could work Commissioner Pomeroy repeated his earlier remark that if a problem arises or continues to exist, he should be contacted personally, and he would request that the permit be brought back to the Commission for review. -10- COMMISSIONERS O,y pGCjy ,� • �0,�, �y`909` Mot 0 Aye Noe .0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Jul 20,1995 ROLL CALL I INDEX ion * * M Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "A" Commissioner Kranzley stated his support of the motion and commented that as a resident of West Newport, he considered himself somewhat of an expert on noise. He added that if anyone were to witness public intoxication, or a violation of a use permit of this restaurant or any restaurant in his community, it is that person's obligation to take measures towards correction of the offense. Commissioner Adams stated he would not be supporting the motion as he had not heard any compelling reason for the expansion of hours, in fact he had heard testimony that other restaurants did have a midnight closing hour, but didn't stay open until then. He believed a compromise closing hour of 10:30 p.m. would be appropriate to see if there were less neighborhood disturbances Commissioner Gifford stated her support of the motion adding she felt it gave the applicant opportunity to maximize the restaurant operation and perceived need of the customers. It also affords the restaurant opportunity to be responsive to the concerns expressed by its residential neighbors. She would, therefore, also be prepared to support a review of the use permit should it become necessary. 0 0 COMMISSIONERS ,A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, exterior illumination and underground utilities for the subject restaurant site will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) 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 and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to perimeter walls, landscaping, exterior illumination and underground utilities shall be waived. 3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, daily. 5. That all applicable previous conditions of approval from Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 6. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation -12- COMMISSIONERS k\01(2159- • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 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. 7. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Use Permit No. 3561 (Summerhouse) Agenda Item No.. Request to permit the construction of an 84 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the PC District (previously approved as UP 3561 Emerald Village and commonly referred to as "Summerhouse "). The proved proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, a request to establish an off -street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula, and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service. LOCATION: 3901 East Coast Il'ighway ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: James C. Thomas, Jr., MD. Las Vegas, Nevada OWNER: Southern California IBEW - -NECA Pension Plan, Glendale, California -13- 0 0 COMMISSIONERS A o ®off c�1010vi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Ridgeway clarified that a letter from the Corona del Mar Residents Association requesting the subject application be continued for one month had been rescinded as requested. Christy Teague, Associate Planner explained that the supplemental attachment document received by the Planning Commissioners contained additional conditions incorporated by the City Council into the 1989 project application and which had been omitted from Exhibit "A" of the subject application. Kenneth Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building, commented on the letters that had been recently received, copies of which had been forwarded to the. Commission. He explained that the present application was an exact duplicate of the 1989 application. Mr. Delino called the Commission's attention to the graphics on display, which were renderings of the previous 1989 application, and showed various perspectives of the proposed project. Commissioner Gifford referred a recently received letter from the Corona del Mar Residents Association, dated July 16, 1995, and received by the City July 20, 1995. She questioned if there was a defect in the City's notification procedure as the letter asserted that the Notice of Public Hearing was not received in a timely manner by many of the affected residents. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson replied that the postmark verified that the Notification was mailed within the requirements of the Municipal Code. Chairman Ridgeway commented that he found in his review of the Policy Manual that it is within the authority of the Commission not to accept into the record documents that are received the date of the hearing and felt that this policy issue should be discussed at an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Selich questioned if the proposed project was indeed the exact project with 84 units as proposed in 1989. Jay Garcia, Senior Planner explained that the 1989 project was approved for 85 units, however the plans that were issued for building permits were for 84 units. Responding to a question from Commissioner Thomson whether or not story poles had been erected during the approval process of the previous application to show the actual lines of the proposed project, Mr. Delino stated the poles were usually not requester) by the Commission unless a variance to exceed the height limit was being requested. The. subject -14- 0 .• COMMISSIONERS %\10i- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tuly 20. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX proposal does not exceed the height limit except for providing for the stair and elevator tower within the cupola to be constructed to a height of 39.5± feet in the 32150 Foot Height Limitation District, which is included in the Use Permit application. Commissioner Thomson questioned the point for measuring the ridge height, and Christy Teague, Associate Planner, explained it is measured from the grade directly below; and at any point above natural grade, the project cannot exceed the height limit. Responding to queries from Commissioner Gifford and Chairman- Ridgeway, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager addressed the Planning Commission and summarized the environmental studies prepared for each previous project application. Because of the extent of the original initial study, staff continued to rely on that information to support the certification for a Negative Declaration for subsequent projects. She continued that this was appropriate action because the original project was much larger than the subsequent ones approved for the site, and the circumstances surrounding the project did not change significantly. The primary impacts associated with the project are grading, off -site transport of soils, and noise impacts to units. There was no significant impact to traffic in the original study or any of those items which might encounter a change over time in terms of the base line or the circumstance in which the project was approved. The CEQA guidelines allow subsequent projects to rely on previously certified documents so long as the information is still pertinent and complete, and that there are no additional impacts beyond those originally anticipated and no additional mitigation measures required as part of the new approval. Under these prerequisites, she stated there was no time limit associated with the validity of a previously certified environmental document. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. David Neish, 19100 Von Kaman, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92675, representing the applicant, Dr. James Thomas, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neish stated that after the 1989 application received approval by both the Planning Commission and City Council, it later received approval by the Coastal Commission and a Coastal Development Permit was issued for the plan. Construction began, but was halted due to financial reasons. He -15- COMMISSIONERS • � �9 <97O���P\ 0 .• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX said the present applicant has developed other medical and care facilities in the Southern California region. The applicant has reviewed the past history and public hearing records and accepts all the past agreements, resolutions, findings and conditions applied to the applications approved by the City in 1989. Mr. Neish stipulated concurrence with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A" as well as the revised conditions contained in the addendum report. There are no modifications or adjustments to the plan intended He stated there was a complete set of working drawings at the City that were approved, upon which building permits were issued. Mr. , Neish compared the size of the proposed project with the previous site applications and reiterated that the applicant is requesting nothing more than what was approved by the City in 1989. Responding to questions from Commissioner Kranzley and Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Delino stated that of three classifications of senior care-type facilities, staff knew of no other exact-type facility in the City. In replying to queries from Commissioner Thomson as to the appropriateness of the proposed plan for today's Senior Citizen's needs, Mr. Neish stated that the habits and needs of the Senior Citizen anticipated to occupy this project today are the same as those anticipated for the 1989 project. As a member of the Planning Commission which approved the 1989 project, Commissioner Pomeroy commented on the extensive interaction between the applicant, residents and the applicant at that time which improved and down -sized the project. IW Sy Teller, 465 Fourth Avenue, Laguna Beach, addressed the Planning Commission, and stated that he had been the project architect from its inception in 1987. At the Commission's request, W. Teller approached the display area and described the make -up of the project, layer by layer. Included among the more salient features described by Mr. Teller were the view corridor allowing a view into Buck Gully from Pacific Coast I-lighway and the area of the garden park, concepts which responded to some of the original concerns regarding the overall building size. Mr. Teller explained that the entry or vehicle drive court drops down 7 to 9 feet below street grade at East Coast Highway. The architectural style of bleached -out shingles, garden trellises, white picket fencing reflects a style commonly -16- COMMISSIONERS A • ��2 �q`906! 0 u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX seen in the surrounding residential areas. Mr. Teller said that a great deal of attention was given to providing outside resident independence in the form of view lawn terraces, gardens, and a look -out site. He stated the cupola houses the elevator and adds focus to the project. IW Phil Sansone, 215 Marguerite Ave., Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission as Chairman of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, and stated he wished to withdraw the aforementioned letter regarding late notification which requested continuance of the public. hearing. He explained some of the reasons which prompted the letter, and summarized the modifications the Association wanted incorporated into the conditions of approval as follows: Condition No. 33: That drainage of the property be engineered away from Buck Gully. Condition No. 38: Under no conditions shall Marguerite Avenue north of PCH be used for construction vehicles over 3 tons. Condition No. 41: That no unit be partitioned. Condition No. 59: That the landscape sprinkler system on the Buck Gully side be such that it can be operated independently, sufficient to reach the base of the proposed project's property line, and that it be marked for easy recognition and operation by Fire Department and the facility management personnel. Mr. Sansone addressed Condition No. 47 and suggested the City initiate a study to move the Morning Canyon traffic signal to the intersection of Seaward Road and East Coast Highway. Regarding Condition No. 58, Mr. Sansone requested that language be added to ensure the establishment of a view park. Mr. Kenneth Catanzarite, 1 Canyon Court, addressed the Planning Commission, and stated as owner of the property at 352 Hazel Drive, he did not receive a Notice of Public Hearing and asked for a continuance. At the request of Chairman Ridgeway, 1W Catanzarite pointed out his property as it appeared on a displayed aerial photograph. Mr. Catanzarite questioned the accuracy of the displayed renderings, and stated that the project property was not properly noticed, and that there was confusion between the proposed project's plans and those of the previous project, and he requested a thirty day continuance of the public hearing. For the record, Mr. Catanzarite said that the motivation for not making any changes to the 1989 project plans, was that the applicant had no -17- COMMISSIONERS • \� `909' 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Iuly 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX connection with this project. He opined that misrepresentations were abundant in that the setbacks are more substantial than is ordinary; that I-& Nsch, on behalf of the applicant, represented the project's setbacks adjacent to any residence as being 43 feet when, in fact, the setback next to 352 Hazel is 5 feet or less. He questioned the method of measuring height from mean grade, and stated that by dropping down into the gully, the project will tower above anything else in the neighborhood. He questioned the Commission's intention of relying on the previously prepared Negative Declaration as he felt there had been substantial change in circumstances in, the form of additional construction south on Hazel Drive: three new residences and residents that could adversely be affected by the proposed project. Mr. Catanzarite stated that the construction of his proposed residence would block the view contemplated by the project's view deck, therefore he suggested a condition attached to the project whereby the applicant can not assert any form of easement or restriction or complaint regarding Mr. Catranzarite's development, south of the applicant, that he Would be blocking the applicant's view, air, use, light, and/or enjoyment on the property. Mr. Catanzarite stated he had not seen a soils report regarding the proposed project and questioned what affect it might have on his property. He requested an opportunity to have his soils engineer review the project's soils reports. He questioned the applicant's financial status and record in operating similar care facilities which might adversely affect the proposed project at a future time; he stated that financial statements should be available for review. Mr. Catanzarite referenced Condition No.' 41 and said there was no restriction on the number of full -time residents. Mr. Catanzarite questioned the adequacy of parking spaces. He stated his beliefs that there had been a misrepresentation regarding the setbacks, and that the environmental documentation was insufficient due to changes in circumstances. Mr. Dan Wiseman, 336 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that he had the same concerns regarding the proposed project as when he attended the hearings regarding the previous project. He expressed his concerns regarding the lack of sufficient parking for residents and the lack of financial pro forma for this type of facility; he questioned its potential for profitability. He opined that additional study -18- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH fifR+yZ1XL'All MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX was needed before ascertaining if the proposed project was the best use of the property to which Commissioner Pomeroy commented that it was not within the Planning Commission's purview to decide whether or not a project is economically feasible, but rather a consideration of the City Council. Ms. Helen Rae Sues, 408 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and said that because of the legalities involved, she must make the following statement in order to have it entered into the record. She . continued that there was a gentlemen in the Orange County Health Department who would like to dialog with the Planning Commission in regard to this development. She indicated the gentleman she was referencing was Dr. James Webb of the Orange County Health Department Vector Control, and suggested that a conversation with Dr. Webb regarding an environmental concern pertaining to Buck Gully would render the environmental report obsolete. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared the Planning Commission as President of the Corona del Mar Community Association. A& Nichols voiced his concerns regarding the changes that have occurred since the Negative Declaration's certification. He suggested that the development of the Downcoast area and surrounding roads, including the toll road, have resulted in increased traffic in and through Corona del Mar. He cited the potential unknown impacts the Bonita Canyon toll road may cause, and addressed earlier traffic mitigation measures such as the third lane at Marguerite Avenue that have been removed. Mr. Nichols stated that the removal of crosswalks by the State Highway Department results in increased traffic speeds and makes crossing Coast Highway more difficult. He questioned the viability of the proposed project and that if the project failed economically, it could be converted into a hotel or other use that would be difficult for the City Council to reject. Ms. Patty McDonald, 320 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated as realtor, she had sold approximately twenty homes on Hazel Drive and Poppy Avenue and addressed Condition No. 60 relating to construction parking and queried what route was proposed for -19- COMMISSIONERS \ q, ,o ?�JaC �y`Ol gD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20. 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX construction trucks and how long a construction period was anticipated. Responding to Ms. McDonald's comment Chairman Ridgeway suggested she request that there be no construction traffic permitted on Hazel Drive during the construction period. . Mr. Walter Ziglar, 327 Poppy Avenue, addressed the Planning Commission and voiced his concern regarding density that such a proposed project would impose. He stated that though a congregate care facility, might be needed in Newport Beach, its location at one -way Hazel Drive , and Coast I1ighway was not appropriate and did not allow for safe and adequate ingress and egress He questioned where the residents and employees would park stating there was no parking available on Poppy Avenue and though Condition No. 45 states that residents shall not own cars that are parked or stored on the facility property, he contended that residents would own cars and would be parking them somewhere. Mr. David Neish reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he would address some of the aforementioned comments and concerns. He stated that the project will be built according to City Code; parking will be confined to the subject property. He said the project would not be contemplated if the applicant did not feel it was economically viable. Mr. Neish said the proposed project would generate 50% less traffic than was previously generated, and the project will have absolutely no impact on the toll road. W. Neish stated the applicant would agree to a condition that there be no construction traffic on Hazel Drive. Referring to the length of the construction period, Mr. Neish advised that though the architect indicated. 11 months, allowing for the unexpected he would anticipate 18 months maximum. Mr. Neish agreed to Mr. Sansone's suggested modifications to the Conditions of Approval, as follows: Condition No. 59 to add language to satisfy the concerns regarding an independent sprinkler system on Buck Gully; Condition No. 58: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy the developer shall improve the public right -of -way adjacent to the view lookout subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. Condition No. 41: Eliminating "beds" and adding that occupancy would be limited to 100 occupants. Condition No. 47: to add to the existing Condition a requirement to have the City -20- COAMIMISSIO\NERS • \�v9�< F 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH iuly 20.1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Traffic Engineer study the feasibility of changing the traffic signal from Morning Canyon to Seaward. Responding to a query from Chairman Ridgeway regarding facility parking, Mr. Neish explained that 46 parking spaces are proposed, 18 are designated for employee parking, which is the maximum number of employees that will ever be on the site at one time. This number of spaces is assuming that each employee drives his own car, while in reality, 1W Neish stated, some of the employees will be using public transportation or . car - pooling. There are two spaces reserved for the facility's two transport vans, and 26 spaces remaining for residents and guests. Mr. Neish continued that typically congregate care facilities allow 0.6 to .75 spaces per residential unit. In an older age group, 75 to 90 years, a ratio of 0.2 to 0.3 spaces per residential unit is customary within the industry. This project is proposing .52 spaces per unit. Mr. Neish referred to the landscaped garden area located on the top level of the parking structure. He explained that during the approval process of the 1989 project, parking was a major concern, and at that time, the City Council stipulated in the conditions that the parking structure be reinforced so if, sometime in the future it became necessary, the area could be converted into parking. Conversion would provide for an additional 11 -15 parking spaces. This same condition will be included in the present project. Also, included in the previous approval and in the current project's conditions of approval (Condition No. 57), is a stipulation, after the project is fully occupied, the applicant will monitor the parking demand and provide the resulting data to the City Traffic Division. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman Ridgeway reopened the Public Hearing. Ms. Patty McDonald reappeared before the Planning Commission and addressed the adverse visual impact upon the residential area that would be looking onto what she perceived to be the parking garage at the base of Buck Gully as well as the top level garden area if it were converted to parking. She expressed her -21- COMMISSIONERS • Moti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tub 20. 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX concerns whether or not these two areas would be sufficiently camouflaged with mature landscaping. Replying, Mr. Neish explained the lower level referred to is actually living quarters, and submittal of a landscaping plan is included in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Kenneth Catanzarite reappeared before the Planning Commission to express his concern regarding the type of ventilation system proposed for subterranean parking and its noise level rating, and also requested being shown a 43 foot setback, referred to earlier, adjacent to his property. Mr. Neish reappeared before the Platining'Conunission.: He explained that the ventilation system would be installed up through the root and stated if he had previously referred to a 43 foot setback from the facility to the adjacent property, he was mistaken. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy stated he had been involved in the public hearings for the previous two applications for the subject property and acknowledged the various changes and modifications leading to the current * application. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3561 subject to on the Findings and Conditions of Approval, as modified, contained in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, and in the revised Exhibit "A" of the addendum, and incorporating the changes that were discussed during this Public Hearing and agreed to by the applicant. Commissioner Thomson addressed. Condition No. 35, mechanical equipment sound attenuation, and Assistant City Manager Delino replied that the maximum sound level referred to of 55 dBa was within the City's sound level standards being recommended to the City Council. Commissioner Adams addressed Condition No. 33. Discussion followed with Chairman Ridgeway, Commissioner Adams and Mr. David Neish, whereby Condition No. 33 is to be modified adding language "That to the maximum extent possible the velocity of concentrated runoff from the -22- COMMISSIONERS All 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX project shall be away from Buck Gully and shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design." Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the project will comply with all applicable City and State. Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except the height of the proposed stair /elevator tower. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and, the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. That adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. That the building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 5. That the building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. That the building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces inasmuch as the project has provided increased setbacks from public streets and adjoining residential property. . 7. That the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. -23- COMMISSIONERS • IWOP • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f�1 I •r•�. ". MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. for access through or use of property with the proposed development. 9. That the use of tandem parldng spaces in conjunction with valet parking service 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, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 10. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That Section 13.05.010 of the Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new structure. 12. That the sidewalk along East Coast Highway is the only pedestrian access between the Shore Cliff Development and the business district of Corona del Mar on the southerly side of East Coast Highway. 13. That it has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed project will not exceed that which would be generated if the base traffic generation rate were applied to a project developed at the base floor area ratio. 14. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the project have been based on standard traffic generation rates generally applied to an elderly personal care facility. _24_ COMMISSIONERS • \ \9\0 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ti du 90. 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That the proposed project is a single use development that will be restricted to an 84 unit (100 bed) elderly personal care facility upon which the traffic equivalency was based. 16. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 17. That the proposed structure and use are compatible with the . surrounding area.. 18. That the increased floor area ratio will not result in significant impairment of public views. 19. That the site is physically suitable for the floor area proposed, considering that a 0.5 F.A.R office or retail use with 0.25 above grade structure parking could be constructed on the site which would contain approximately the same building floor area and building bulk as the proposed project. 20. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3561 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 development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site -25- 0 0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 2n. 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modifications or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the. responsibility of the developer. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be. provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to fiuther review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: a. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. b. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan IIG-L. c. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed I 1 percent., 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181 -L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. -26- 0 0 COMMISSIONERS W, N@,�v?xm , wom OR -4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That all work within the East Coast Highway right -of -way be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Hghway and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping with 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. 9. That prior to issuance of arty grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10. That the County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a minimum of 46 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. That the construction shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. 13. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That the entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. That the building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. -27- COMMISSIONERS • 0090kilom is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 20, 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 16. That all exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. That access to the building for Fire Department use shall occur at each exit point and the main lobby. 18. That a Class I standpipe shall be required at locations designated by the Fire Department. 19. That consideration of the use' of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non - ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20. That the planter shown on the site comer at East Coast Highway and Buck Gully shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 21. That valet parking service be provided at all times unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. 22. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 23. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel Drive, East Coast I-Pighway and adjoining properties. 24. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06. 100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right -of -way shall be approved by the Public Works Department. -28- f' 1 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 20.1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 26. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. That the landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Community Services Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 28. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the fight source and to min nLe light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 29. That the development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 30. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 31. That the grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 32. That an erosion, siltation. and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. -29- COMMISSIONERS 0 ROLL CALL • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1995 33. That to the maximum extent possible the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be away from Buck Gully and shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 34. That grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on .recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be fiarnished to the Building Department. 35. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBa at the property line. 36. That units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 cBA CNEL for the interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 37. That the excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. 38. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works -30- MINUTES INDEX .0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T -1- In 900G MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Departmea There will be no use of construction vehicles over 3 tons on Marguerite Avenue, north of Pacific Coast Highway. 34. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 40. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 41. That the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 occupants. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a copy of the report that is submitted to the State of California indicating the number of individuals residing on the premises, and the number of available beds. 42. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoning of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 43. That the occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. 44. That any ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests and shall not be available to members of the general public. -31- COMMISSIONERS 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T,dv 90 _ TQas ROLL CALL INDEX 45. That the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. 46. That the garden area above the subterranean parking lot shall be constructed of building materials that will permit said garden area to be converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future. 47. That the developer shall pay his fair share of the traffic signal at the. intersection of Seaward Road and East Coast FTighway should Caltrans technical warrants for a signal be met within five years of the occupancy approval for the project. A bond shall be posted to secure this obligation. That the City Traffic Engineer will conduct a study regarding the feasibility of moving the traffic signal from Morning Canyon and East Coast Flighway to Seaward Road and East Coast Highway. 48. That the Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 49. That during the construction period, all construction parking shall be on -site, or on an approved off -site location. 50. That the project be designed to meet the standards of the current fire codes. 51. 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. 52. That 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. -32- COMMISSIONERS i � \990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tvly 20. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 53. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors -in- interest in perpetuity to an elderly personal care facility and shall be limited to an occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older. The only exception shall allow co- occupancy by the spouse of a qualified person. Restrictions shall be placed on the deed and in any other suitable binding document. consistent with the provisions of the above agreement. 54. That the proposed project shall be subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission. 55. That the height of trees on the site shall be restricted to the height of the building excluding the height of the cupola above the main roofs of the structure. 56. That when bus service is not available to the employees of the facility, the applicant shall be required to provide van service to and from the Park and Ride facility in Newport Center. 57. That the applicant shall submit an onsite parking survey to the Planning Commission, to commence six months after the date of the opening of the facility for a period of six months. The survey shall consist of the number of automobiles onsite, the number of employees onsite, and the number of vehicles that are parked. 58. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall improve the public right -of -way adjacent to the view lookout at Glen Drive and East Coast Highway, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. 59. That a plan for an independent sprinkler system, identified for easy access, for the control and maintenance of vegetation on -33- • 0 COMMISSIONERS A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Im"W1TiL•31.'1 ROLL CALL INDEX the slope of Buck Gully shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department, and that the system be installed as approved by the Building and Fire Departments. 60. That during the construction period, all construction parking shall be onsite, or on an approved off -site location. There shall be no construction traffic on Hazel Drive. 61. That the applicant shall be responsible for grading the top. portion of Buck Gully adjacent to the site, including the installation of sidewalk and landscaping, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. •s* Use Permit No. 3562 (Public Hearin el Agenda Item No.6 Request to establish an outdoor sales facility involving the sale of home fianishings and decorator items on property located in the RSC -H District. ur 3562 Continued LOCATION: 100 -200 West Coast Highway. Lots 1 -3 and a portion of to 8-10 -95 Lot 4, Tract No. 210, located at 100 -200 West Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive, across from Bayshores. ZONE: RSC-H APPLICANT: Wendy Wong OWNER: Horwin/Gordon Property, Newport Beach Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building, addressed a site plan of the project on exhibit, describing the building locations and features of the project site. Referring to the project staff report, page 3, he indicated a correction regarding the number of on -site parking spaces should be noted: the number should be 14 spaces which includes two -34- COMMISSIONERS • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 20.1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX spaces for the handicapped. Chairman Ridgeway inquired as to the approved location of the flower cart presently occupying an area on the corner of the property. Discussion ensued among Chairman Ridgeway and staff. Jay Garcia, Senior Planner, stated the location of the cart under the provisions of the use permit was as shown on the exhibit. He explained that staff had met with the owner of the flower cart and staff had agreed to allow the cart to remain in the comer location until such time as the present application was determined, at which time the cart will either be moved to the permitted location or the cart owner will make application to amend the , use permit, if she can renegotiate her lease with the property owner. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Stephen Sutherland, 2101 15th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing the applicant and also the Mariners Mile Association. Replying to an inquiry from Chairman Ridgeway, W. Sutherland explained that the applicant, Wendy Wong was currently out of the country. Ms. Wong operates a 3000 square foot business, The Silk Road, in Atrium Court in Fashion Island, which she intends to move to the subject property. He summarized the past history of the property since 1982, when it was first developed for the display of rental automobiles, followed by a used car facility and a boat sales operation. The site, vacant since 1987, borders the second busiest intersection in the City for traffic count. Mr. Sutherland described the business operation as being the outdoor display and sales of home decorator items including fountains, columns, and cast iron patio-type items. Responding to a question from Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Sutherland answered that the project had been reviewed by the Mariners Mile Association and it was his opinion that if this type of business was being considered for a comparable site in Mariners Mile, it would be appropriate. Chairman Ridgeway voiced his concerns with the proposed 6 foot wrought iron fence and unpleasant esthetics created by the outdoor display of the proposed items. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners. Commissioner Adams opined that the proposed use might look favorable or unfavorable -35- • 0 COMMISSIONERS 00 - I t�, 10-19-$ �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T.,lc, In 1445 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX depending on how it is accomplished, and while he did not feel the use proposed to be the best use of the property, it would be better than looking at weeds coming up through the pavement. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the application be conditioned whereby the site be maintained so that it is architecturally and esthetically pleasing allowing the Commission to review the use permit should the property deteriorate. Chairman Ridgeway proposed reversing the display area with the parking area; Commissioner Pomeroy voiced his disagreement with this reversal proposal. Commissioner Thomson suggested restricting the height limit of the displayed items. Mr. Ted Bean, Real Estate Enterprises, representing the property owner, Mr. Leonard Horwin, appeared before the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission that considerable time had been spent with the applicant and representatives of the product line before agreeing to a one year lease. Commissioner Adams stated he would like the proprietor to be present at the public hearing so as to allow the opportunity to speak with and ask pertinent questions of the applicant. He felt that the Commission could develop conditions that would ensure that the merchandise were displayed in an orderly fashion. It would be his recommendation to request of the applicant a sketch of the manner in which the merchandise is to be displayed and how the fence would appear. Commissioner Adams stated he did not find the proposed project to be any less desirable, in appearance, than some of the marine oriented businesses in the area, but did ask that the application be continued until such time as the applicant could be present. Mr. Sutherland reappeared before the Commission and assured the Commission that the applicant was an experienced business person and the merchandise would be displayed in a tasteful manner. He requested that the public hearing not be continued until the next meeting as he was unsure if either the applicant or himself would be available at that time. Commissioner Gifford expressed her desire to work with the applicant to satisfy the needs of both exposure and security of the merchandise to be -36- COMMISSIONERS 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX displayed. Discussion with staff followed whereby it was determined the zoning code permitted retail use on the site, however the outdoor display use required a use permit. Commissioner Gifford stated the possibility of interspersing landscaping with the merchandise to arrive at a more pleasing product. She said she would support a continuance of the public hearing until such time as the applicant or representative of the applicant could be present to discuss the concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Kranzley stated he would not be supporting the application - and voiced his concern as a bicycle commuter with the dangers of having a traffic distraction on such a heavily trafficked intersection as Dover Drive and Coast Highway. He described the bicycle trail as being zero at one point at the intersection, that the vehicle lanes narrow from three to two, and that passer -bys might more easily focus, and thereby be distracted, by the relatively small items on display compared to some other use. Commissioner Pomeroy commented he believed that Condition No. 6 adequately addressed some of the concerns being discussed. In answer to a question from Chairman Ridgeway, 1W Sutherland stated there had been no discussion between himself and the applicant regarding reducing the outdoor sales area from 5,000 square feet to an area substantially less. Whereby, Chairman Ridgeway said he was concerned with the impact of the fencing and size of the display area, and he would support continuing the application until the applicant or the applicant's representative could be present to discuss the issues of concern. Chairman Gifford requested that the applicant provide a design of the proposed outdoor sales area, the fencing proposed,.signage, and whether or not there could be some greenery interspersed in the layout. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested the 'applicant consider downsizing the outdoor display area and moving it away from the fenced in area, creating a buffer. -37- COMMISSIONERS Motio Ayes Noes • Motio All A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r„ try r)n 1aaq MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. n Motion was made and voted to continue Use Permit No. 3562 to the * * * * * August 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. * *■r Modification No. 4324 Agenda Item No.7 Request for 3 foot balcony encroachment scaled back to 2 feet by Modifications Committee. M. 4324 LOCATION: 221 Via Firenza. Portions of Lots 960 and 961 Tract No. Set for Review 907. 8 -10 -95 Assistant City Manager, Ken Delino, stated Commissioner Gifford had requested this item be reviewed by the Planning Commission. n * Motion was made and voted on to call this item up for review at the yes August 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Additional Business Additional Business a) City Council Follow -up: Ken Delino, Assistant City Manger, informed the Planning Commission that the City Council would be reviewing Planning Department Priorities and Reorganization at the City Council meeting of July 24, 1995. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the Planning staff prepare a regular follow -up summary of Council actions on items that have been recommended by the Planning Commission. b) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- None -38- COMMISSIONERS 0 , , , P V4 %?iv 40 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r.A., on ionr MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX c) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - None d) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting:- Commissioner Gifford asked staff for a follow up on the status of the vacant parcel adjacent to the McDonalds' project parking lot and the conditions regarding the directional signs. e) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None fl Requests for excused absences: Commissioner Pomeroy was excused from the August 10, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. g) Discussion of staff report format: Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, asked for the Planning Commission's continued input in the reformatting of the staff reports as they are intended to be a working and useful document for the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 P.M. Ad _j ourn. sss MICHAEL KRANZLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -39-